All Claims of The Son's Deity

[101G]

There's no verse anywhere that says Jesus laid aside his deity...

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

now commonsense to understand that the Lord Jesus Almighty God laid aside his deity. Knowing this, that there are only three entities. 1. God 2. angels and 3. man. if God, (Jesus) was made lower than the angels, then he God the Lord Jesus had to be HIGHER than the angels whom he was made LOWER than.

UNDERSTAND? if not just ask. 101G is here to assist you in clear understanding.

101G.

 

[101G]

To all,
to my unitarian Brothers in Christ. understand the implications of Hebrews 2:9 . if the Lord Jesus was just a man, an agent of God, how is a MAN greater than the angels? especially in POWER and MIGHT. for the scriptures clearly states, 2 Peter 2:11 "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord."

so, if Jesus was Just a Man, (as you unitarian have said), then please tell us how he, Jesus as a man was made LOWER than the angels?

any unitarian Brother can reply with the answer please. please provide book, chapter, and verse to your answer.

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

now commonsense to understand that the Lord Jesus Almighty God laid aside his deity. Knowing this, that there are only three entities. 1. God 2. angels and 3. man. if God, (Jesus) was made lower than the angels, then he God the Lord Jesus had to be HIGHER than the angels whom he was made LOWER than.

UNDERSTAND? if not just ask. 101G is here to assist you in clear understanding.

101G.

Commonsense? You mean your own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as you pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there, and then you construct your "own God" which is the product of your own human thinking.

 

[Peterlag]

A Trinity person asked...

Please explain how the Word that became flesh (Jesus) was with God and was God in the beginning before Christ was born? And how could Jesus have looked forward to the glory he had BEFORE becoming flesh?

And then someone replied with this...

Jesus did not physically exist before his birth, but rather was foreordained according to 1 Peter 1:20, which explains the “pre-existence” verses. God’s Word “Logos” in John 1:1 refers to God’s plan, wisdom, and intention. NOT a “second person” of the doctrine of men’s Trinity. That “Word” became flesh when Jesus was born and that was in John 1:14.

The “Word” was with God in the beginning because God’s plan and purpose for salvation was with Him from the start. But not as a literal person yet. So in John 17:5, when Jesus says he had glory with God before the world began, he’s not talking about remembering a past life. He’s asking the Father to now give him the glory that was planned for him all along.

Just like believers are said to be chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), even though we didn’t exist yet. It’s about destiny, not preexistence. Jesus is God’s human Messiah, born at a specific time (Luke 1:35), not an eternal being who became a man. The beauty is that God’s plan - His Word - became a real person, when the precious Son was born!

 

[Capbook]

1.) The word Bible is in the Scriptures mentioned as scrolls and scripts.

Is scrolls and scripts Old and New Testament?

2.) In this life we speak about what is. Not what is not. I can say I'm a man. I should not have to say what I'm not. That I'm a man, but not a horse, or a cow, or a tree, or a truck, etc.

Yes, do you believe that a dog bear puppies?
1. Here, Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not?
2. And as Jesus the "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second one? Kindly explain.

3.) Philippians says Jesus emptied Himself and took the form of a servant in the likeness of man. It does not say he emptied himself of his Godhood.

Another simple logic, hope you will answer all these and not just evade it;
1. Jesus as in the "form of a servant," is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the "form of God", is He God or not? Again why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Explain again.

 

[Peterlag]

Is scrolls and scripts Old and New Testament?

Yes, do you believe that a dog bear puppies?
1. Here, Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not?
2. And as Jesus the "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second one? Kindly explain.

Another simple logic, hope you will answer all these and not just evade it;
1. Jesus as in the "form of a servant," is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the "form of God", is He God or not? Again why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Explain again.

Is scrolls and scripts Old and New Testament?
Scrolls, Scripts, and Writings are other words for Bible. So don't say the word Bible is not in the Bible. The word Trinity would have been a very big deal and something that important would have been taught everywhere. And it is not taught anywhere. It would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity,

1. Here, Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not?
2. And as Jesus the "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second one? Kindly explain.
1.) There's nothing in Scripture that says if Mary was his mother then he had to be born a mother.
2.) There's nothing in Scripture that says if God was his father then he had to be born a God.

Another simple logic, hope you will answer all these and not just evade it;
1. Jesus as in the "form of a servant," is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the "form of God", is He God or not? Again why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Explain again.

1.) Yes Jesus had the outward appearance of a servant. Not the essential nature of a servant.
2.) Yes Jesus had the outward appearance of God. Not the essential nature of a god.

 

[mikesw]

Is scrolls and scripts Old and New Testament?
Scrolls, Scripts, and Writings are other words for Bible. So don't say the word Bible is not in the Bible. The word Trinity would have been a very big deal and something that important would have been taught everywhere. And it is not taught anywhere. It would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity,

1. Here, Jesus as "Son of man" as His mother is human Mary. Is He man or not?
2. And as Jesus the "Son of God" as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second one? Kindly explain.
1.) There's nothing in Scripture that says if Mary was his mother then he had to be born a mother.
2.) There's nothing in Scripture that says if God was his father then he had to be born a God.

Another simple logic, hope you will answer all these and not just evade it;
1. Jesus as in the "form of a servant," is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the "form of God", is He God or not? Again why the honest and logical answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Explain again.

1.) Yes Jesus had the outward appearance of a servant. Not the essential nature of a servant.
2.) Yes Jesus had the outward appearance of God. Not the essential nature of a god.

What? Really? No real logic to the text is needed by Peterlag.

 

[Peterlag]

We cannot approach the Bible with wisdom and “reason together” if we must invent and use non-biblical phrases to support our theology. The Bible calls Jesus the “Son” of God for the simple reason that he had a beginning. Jesus had been part of God’s plan since the foundation of the world, but he began his actual life when God “fathered” him and Mary conceived him in her womb.

There are many verses where Jesus and God are portrayed as two separate beings and there are too many examples to list, but just to mention a few we can look at when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he was not good, but “God” was good. Also Jesus grew in favor with “God” and with men, and he told his disciples “Believe in God; believe also in me."

 

[synergy]

We cannot approach the Bible with wisdom and “reason together” if we must invent and use non-biblical phrases to support our theology. The Bible calls Jesus the “Son” of God for the simple reason that he had a beginning. Jesus had been part of God’s plan since the foundation of the world, but he began his actual life when God “fathered” him and Mary conceived him in her womb.

There are many verses where Jesus and God are portrayed as two separate beings and there are too many examples to list, but just to mention a few we can look at when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he was not good, but “God” was good. Also Jesus grew in favor with “God” and with men, and he told his disciples “Believe in God; believe also in me."

So stop inventing falsehoods against the fact that "the Word is God". Stop promoting your Heretical myths and fables that misrepresent the Word who was God.

 

[Peterlag]

So stop inventing falsehoods against the fact that "the Word is God". Stop promoting your Heretical myths and fables that misrepresent the Word who was God.

Jesus did not physically exist before his birth, but rather was foreordained according to 1 Peter 1:20, which explains the “pre-existence” verses. God’s Word “Logos” in John 1:1 refers to God’s plan, wisdom, and intention. NOT a “second person” of the doctrine of men’s Trinity. That “Word” became flesh when Jesus was born and that was in John 1:14. The “Word” was with God in the beginning because God’s plan and purpose for salvation was with Him from the start. But not as a literal person yet.

 

[Runningman]

So stop inventing falsehoods against the fact that "the Word is God". Stop promoting your Heretical myths and fables that misrepresent the Word who was God.

Why does 1John 1:1-3 say the Word is a thing if the Word is God? My God isn't a thing in any world and I am pretty sure He wouldn't like to be referred to as such. Maybe since there are no examples of the Word being God in the Bible, and John not being a believer in the deity of Jesus in Acts 4:23-31, you are misunderstanding John 1:1?

By the way, John 17:3 plainly states that the only true God is the Father. So we can rule out the Word being literally God.

My advice to you is don't just camp out in John 1:1 and pretend like it stands alone while ignoring the rest of the Bible. Logos Theology is a very weak philosophy with little scriptural support.