All Claims of The Son's Deity

[101G]

We don't need to prove what is not there.

thanks, so used the bible to prove all things, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Adam is not God. And neither is Jesus. If he was Adam could not be the same type of Jesus. My friend Richard says you guys play the "Get out of Jail card" whenever you need to make Jesus a man again. You switch back and forth whenever you need to.

this why 101G posted 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Jesus is God. this is why you don't know it. Listen and Learn. the term Son of Man and Son of God is this the same PERSON? think before you answer.


101G.

 

[101G]

@Peterlag
this should be a snap to answer, "The son of God and the Son of Man. .... but 101G don't mind giving a helping hand. Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

a child born... "Son of God" (a Body). a son given .... "Son of Man" (The Spirit)..... (smile).... did that help you?

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

@Peterlag
this should be a snap to answer, "The son of God and the Son of Man. .... but 101G don't mind giving a helping hand. Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

a child born... "Son of God" (a Body). a son given .... "Son of Man" (The Spirit)..... (smile).... did that help you?

101G.

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[Peterlag]

thanks, so used the bible to prove all things, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

this why 101G posted 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Jesus is God. this is why you don't know it. Listen and Learn. the term Son of Man and Son of God is this the same PERSON? think before you answer.


101G.

You can't prove what is not there. Take for example green men flying above the clouds with birds. I cannot prove they are not there because they are not there.

 

[Peterlag]

neither is there any unitarian concept in the bible. so. why try to prove something that is not true?

101G

There's a whole Bible that teaches about the son of God. You don't know this because you don't know the Bible. You know the Catholic concept.

 

[mikesw]

Data On The Trinity​

"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine... it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.

“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.

“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.

“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." -Oxford Companion To the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Prof. M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,p. 12, 20.

“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of The Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.

“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.

“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Prof. C. Ryrie, p. 89.

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” -Christian Doctrine, Prof. S. Guthrie, Columbia Theol. Seminary, 1994,p. 92.

“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms"- An Outline of Biblical Theology, Prof. M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.

“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary Of TheBible, 1898.

“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Rev. M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.

The above is from volume one of a two volume paper called...

Sleight Of Mind
by: Steven Blake

Maybe someone can create a deniers bible.

 

[mikesw]

Adam is called a “type” of Jesus Christ...

(Romans 5:14) The word translated as “type” in many English versions is the translation of the Greek word tupos (τύπος) which can be defined as “a type, pattern, model, or example of something else.” Although the KJV translates tuposas “figure” most of the more modern versions say “pattern” (NIV), “prototype” (HCSB), or “type” (ESV, NAB, NASB). Adam was a type, prototype, or pattern of Christ because he was fully human and began without a sin nature—and Jesus was the same: fully human and made without a sin nature. The reason no other human male after Adam could be a “type” of Christ is that we are all born with a sin nature. Adam could not be a “type” of Christ if Jesus was 100% man and 100% God because Adam did not have a “God-nature.”

oh right. And Jesus was not formed out of the dirt of the earth, so Adam could not be a type of Jesus. Much more stuff to add to the denier's bible.

 

[TomL]

I'm not running and there is no pre-existence in the Bible. It's only in your mind.

Again you still do not respond to what was asked or even attempt to exegete the passage

That is running from my point no matter how much you deny doing so.


Did Christ not exist in the form of God and was he not capable of thinking or considering having had a mind before becoming a man?

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

You have not stated one word regarding this.

 

[TomL]

I have. There is no pre-existence.

Sorry no you have not

Did Christ not exist in the form of God and was he not capable of thinking or considering having had a mind before becoming a man?


i see no answer or no comment actually dealing with this in accord with the passage

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

You have not stated one word regarding this.

 

[TomL]

GINOLJC, to all.
my opinion? lol, lol, lol, it's you who cannot accept what the bible say. you didn't even KNOW who the Lord God was in Isaiah 48:16 nor in Revelation.... lol. LOOK ....... when you can accept God written then we can discuss.

see what 101G is speaking of ..... you're Ignorant of God word. let 101G show you. the ANOTHER.... the SAME ONE PERSON. listen and Learn, using the Vine dictionary which makes it so simple.
Another, [ 1,,G243 G2087 ,allos heteros ] have a difference in meaning, which despite a tendency to be lost, is to be observed in numerous passages. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort;" heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort." Christ promised to send "another Comforter" (allos, "another like Himself," not heteros), John 14:16.

see the difference now. a numerical difference example is, First & Last, the Same person in dispensation of time. or Father & Son in dispensation of time, or Root & Offspring in dispensation of time. this is all accomplish in H259 the ECHAD of God.

now ANOTHER that is the SAME.... Listen, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" here the LORD is "ONE"
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

see definition #2. (as an ordinal) first. now let's see that FIRST in dispensation of time. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." see that term BEGINNING in verse 1 here. it is the Hebrew term
H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
Notice definition #1, the first, in place, time, order or rank.

FIRST in TIME, yes the time IN, IN, IN, the beginning, meaning our TIME, for God has no TIME. here God is the First/Father/Root/the CREATOR & MAKER of all things. in TIME to Come, scripture, Galatians 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," in what? THE FULLNESS OF ..... "TIME", what did the definition of beginning states, FIRST in TIME. Oh this is so easy. in TIME as the ECHAD of himself, THE "FIRST" now in the end times, or the Last days, he God in the ECHAD come as the Son. why? to SAVE & REDEEMED that which he made in the BEGINNING. meaning he is the Last/Son/Offspring. this is just too easy.

You have proved a single thing which teaches your modalism.

And you are branching into a discussion of time of which there is more than one view

That is unrelated to the issue of modalism

And BTW trinitartianism affirms the echad of God so you gain nothing by speaking of this

Gal 4:4 simply speaks of at the right time the Father sent the son

The father had not sent the Father

but he sent the son

That is two and then he sent the spirit upon the son and that is three

 

[Horatius]

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.

 

[civic]

First, it is not Matthew 5:23. It is John 5:23.
Second, that doesn't answer the question I asked. A "yes" or "no" will suffice. I know that it is really difficult for you to be clear on such things, but give it a shot.

why are yes or no questions so difficult for some to answer.

 

[101G]

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

ERROR, try again.

101G

 

[101G]

You can't prove what is not there. Take for example green men flying above the clouds with birds. I cannot prove they are not there because they are not there.

are not pilots in the armed forces dress in green uniforms flying airplane above the clouds with the birds? so, read and UNDERSTAND the bible.. ok.. with the Holy Spirit. THEN YOU WILL KNOW.
101G.

 

[101G]

There's a whole Bible that teaches about the son of God. You don't know this because you don't know the Bible. You know the Catholic concept.

MAYBE "YOU" DON'T KNOW. let's see if this is a Catholic concept. the Son of God came out of Mary..... (smile). the Son of Man came out of Heaven. do you know that.

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

now, is this the Son of Man here or the Son of God .... "let's see if you're Catholic... (smile)".

101G

 

[101G]

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.

GINOLJC, to all.
ok Good, can you tell 101G in John 1:3 is this the same ONE PERSON that is in Isaiah 44:24 that ... "MADE ALL THINGS?". read both scriptures carefully before you answer.

101G.

 

[101G]

You have proved a single thing which teaches your modalism.

And you are branching into a discussion of time of which there is more than one view

That is unrelated to the issue of modalism

And BTW trinitartianism affirms the echad of God so you gain nothing by speaking of this

Gal 4:4 simply speaks of at the right time the Father sent the son

The father had not sent the Father

but he sent the son

That is two and then he sent the spirit upon the son and that is three

this sound like a defeat, or surrender. ... (smile). who said 101G teach or even believes in modalism? you .... you said that. which is a personal opinion of a defeated person who knows NOTHING of God as to "WHO" he is nor "WHAT" he is. when people start to call someone else other beliefs this means that their theology in their beliefs are appearing for what their beliefs and doctrine are ... FALSE.

have 101G called you something in theology that only you say that you're? so why call 101G a modelist when 101G never said he was a modelist.

but to refresh your memory, 101G is "Diversified Oneness" just what God is of himself. just what he, Jesus, God taught his disciple, and apostles. and now he, God, the Lord Jesus has taught 101G.

so, make note of this ok.... "Diversified Oneness". 101G is a "Diversified Oneness" thanks in advance.

101G.

 

[101G]

@Peterlag @TomL and @Horatius,
please understand, 101G is not AGAINIST anyone. only against ERRORS, and MISTAKES, LIES are only of the devil, and not the children of God. so, 101G is only against the devil.

now let's examine bible scripture, no opinions, no personal interpretation.

Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
here clearly the "LORD", all caps is the First and the Last. now this, Revelation 1:13 "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle." Revelation 1:14 "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;" Revelation 1:15 "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." Revelation 1:16 "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:"

the Lord, the Son of Man is the First and the Last, and Isaiah 41:4 the "LORD" is the First and the Last.

question, "the person in Isaiah 41:4 is he the person in Revelation 1:17?" your answers please a YES or NO will do, afterward we will discuss.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

Data On The Trinity​

"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine... it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.

“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.

“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.

“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." -Oxford Companion To the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Prof. M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,p. 12, 20.

“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of The Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.

“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.

“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Prof. C. Ryrie, p. 89.

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” -Christian Doctrine, Prof. S. Guthrie, Columbia Theol. Seminary, 1994,p. 92.

“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms"- An Outline of Biblical Theology, Prof. M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.

“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary Of TheBible, 1898.

“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Rev. M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.

The above is from volume one of a two volume paper called...

Sleight Of Mind
by: Steven Blake

A series of half-truths do not make an argument against the Triune essence of God. These points do not speak against the concept of the Triune essence of God. The Trinity doctrine is pointing out the reconciliation of passages of the divinity of Christ and distinction of the Spirit into the recognition that God is one rather than there being three separate gods or a modality of a single "person." As Peterlag has shared before, the divinity of Christ and the relevance of Matt 28:19 of the threeness of the Godhead were recognized in the second century. We see with Burrows' remark that he could be referring to the philosophical concepts used, not the rejection of passages like John 17:3-5.

 

[Peterlag]

why are yes or no questions so difficult for some to answer.

I told him a gazillion times there's no per-existence and he keeps saying I'm not addressing it.