All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Peterlag]

Okay. so you want to have people who accept the Triune God of scripture to remain silent such that unitarians may have unhindered territory to share misconceptions?
You just use this as free advertising for following misconceptions. I do not think the forum is intended for that purpose.

It is too hard to exclude passages that point to the Triune nature just so unitarians can feel better.

Oh no I like the debates. Just don't tell me that you have already proven me wrong and yourself right so I have no need to post anymore.

 

[mikesw]

Oh no I like the debates. Just don't tell me that you have already proven me wrong and yourself right so I have no need to post anymore.

I hardly have to make arguments to counter a hyperliteralist reading of scripture. No sufficient arguments have been given for anyone to deny the Triune God of scriptures. After all this time, I would have expected people with a different view to have made a sufficient argument within a year or two.

 

[Peterlag]

I hardly have to make arguments to counter a hyperliteralist reading of scripture. No sufficient arguments have been given for anyone to deny the Triune God of scriptures. After all this time, I would have expected people with a different view to have made a sufficient argument within a year or two.

Tons... TONS of good stuff have been given to you. And you can't see any of it. Jesus would say you have eyes but cannot see.

Here's a few more...

1.) The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

2.) There is no clear Trinitarian formula in the Bible.

3.) The idea that "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together make one God" is not found in Scripture.

4.) God is spirit, and Jesus said he was not a spirit even after his resurrection (Luke 24:39).

5.) Jesus is very plainly called a man many times in Scripture.

6.) God was not born, but is eternal.

7.) Romans 5:19 says a man had to pay for the sins of mankind.

8.) The man Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).

9.) Jesus called the Father "my God" both before and after his resurrection.

10.) Jesus said my Father is greater than I (John 14:28).

11.) It was God that made Jesus "Lord" (Acts 2:36).

12.) Jesus would have already been the Lord if he was God.

13.) In the future Jesus will be subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

14.) Jesus was "sanctified" by God. God does not need to be sanctified.

15.) There is only one who is good and that is God (Luke 18:19).

16.) God is greater than Christ (1 Corinthians 3:23).

17.) It was God who did miracles and wonders through Christ.

18.) Christ was given all authority. He would have already had all authority if he were God (Matthew 28:18).

19.) The phrase "Deity" never appears in the Bible, nor is Christ ever called "Deity."

20.) Ephesians 4:5 says there is one Lord.

21.) 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one God.

22.) Jesus called the Father the only God (John 5:44).

23.) Christ made a distinction between speaking against him and the Holy Spirit.

24.) Christ said his doctrine was not his own (John 7:16).

25.) Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42).

26.) Jesus counted himself and his Father as two (John 8:17).

27.) The Bible always portrays God and Christ as two separate beings.

28.) The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is an "heir" of God (Romans 8:7).

29.) Jesus grew in wisdom, but God is all wise.

30.) Jesus had limited knowledge (mark 13:32).

31.) God made Jesus perfect through suffering (Hebrews 2:10).

32.) Jesus received the holy spirit at his baptism. He would have already had it if he were God.

33.) Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted.

34.) Angels ministered and strengthened Jesus. God does not need to be strengthened.

35.) Jesus died. God cannot die.

36.) Jesus says we are his brothers. The Bible never says or even hints that we are brothers of God.

37.) We are told to do greater works than Jesus. Nobody can do greater works than God.

38.) Jesus would have already had "all authority" if he were God and would not need to be given “all authority” (Matthew 28:18).

39.) Jesus would have already had “a name above every name” if he were God and would not need to be given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).

40.) Jesus would have already had "glory" if he were God and would not need to be given "glory" (John 17:22, 24).

41.) Jesus would have already been "appointed" if he were God and would not need to be “appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).

42.) Jesus was not unoriginated. Christ was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16).

43.) Jesus was not self-existent. “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57).

44.) Jesus was not immortal. Jesus died and God resurrected him (Acts 13:30).

45.) Jesus was not all wise. Jesus “grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:52).

46.) Jesus was not all-powerful. Christ said “the Son can do nothing by Himself” (John 5:19).

47.) Jesus was not omnipresent. Jesus said after Lazarus died “I am glad I was not there” (John 11:15).

48.) Jesus is called the "Son of God" more than 50 times. Not once is he called "God the Son."

49.) The apostles also taught Jesus was a man (Act 2:22).

50.) The Bible teaches God is the “head” of Christ (Corinthians 11:3).

51.) The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible.

52.) There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[mikesw]

Tons... TONS of good stuff have been given to you. And you can't see any of it. Jesus would say you have eyes but cannot see.

Here's a few more...

1.) The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

2.) There is no clear Trinitarian formula in the Bible.

3.) The idea that "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together make one God" is not found in Scripture.

4.) God is spirit, and Jesus said he was not a spirit even after his resurrection (Luke 24:39).

5.) Jesus is very plainly called a man many times in Scripture.

6.) God was not born, but is eternal.

7.) Romans 5:19 says a man had to pay for the sins of mankind.

8.) The man Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).

9.) Jesus called the Father "my God" both before and after his resurrection.

10.) Jesus said my Father is greater than I (John 14:28).

11.) It was God that made Jesus "Lord" (Acts 2:36).

12.) Jesus would have already been the Lord if he was God.

13.) In the future Jesus will be subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

14.) Jesus was "sanctified" by God. God does not need to be sanctified.

15.) There is only one who is good and that is God (Luke 18:19).

16.) God is greater than Christ (1 Corinthians 3:23).

17.) It was God who did miracles and wonders through Christ.

18.) Christ was given all authority. He would have already had all authority if he were God (Matthew 28:18).

19.) The phrase "Deity" never appears in the Bible, nor is Christ ever called "Deity."

20.) Ephesians 4:5 says there is one Lord.

21.) 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one God.

22.) Jesus called the Father the only God (John 5:44).

23.) Christ made a distinction between speaking against him and the Holy Spirit.

24.) Christ said his doctrine was not his own (John 7:16).

25.) Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42).

26.) Jesus counted himself and his Father as two (John 8:17).

27.) The Bible always portrays God and Christ as two separate beings.

28.) The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is an "heir" of God (Romans 8:7).

29.) Jesus grew in wisdom, but God is all wise.

30.) Jesus had limited knowledge (mark 13:32).

31.) God made Jesus perfect through suffering (Hebrews 2:10).

32.) Jesus received the holy spirit at his baptism. He would have already had it if he were God.

33.) Jesus was tempted. God cannot be tempted.

34.) Angels ministered and strengthened Jesus. God does not need to be strengthened.

35.) Jesus died. God cannot die.

36.) Jesus says we are his brothers. The Bible never says or even hints that we are brothers of God.

37.) We are told to do greater works than Jesus. Nobody can do greater works than God.

38.) Jesus would have already had "all authority" if he were God and would not need to be given “all authority” (Matthew 28:18).

39.) Jesus would have already had “a name above every name” if he were God and would not need to be given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).

40.) Jesus would have already had "glory" if he were God and would not need to be given "glory" (John 17:22, 24).

41.) Jesus would have already been "appointed" if he were God and would not need to be “appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).

42.) Jesus was not unoriginated. Christ was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16).

43.) Jesus was not self-existent. “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57).

44.) Jesus was not immortal. Jesus died and God resurrected him (Acts 13:30).

45.) Jesus was not all wise. Jesus “grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:52).

46.) Jesus was not all-powerful. Christ said “the Son can do nothing by Himself” (John 5:19).

47.) Jesus was not omnipresent. Jesus said after Lazarus died “I am glad I was not there” (John 11:15).

48.) Jesus is called the "Son of God" more than 50 times. Not once is he called "God the Son."

49.) The apostles also taught Jesus was a man (Act 2:22).

50.) The Bible teaches God is the “head” of Christ (Corinthians 11:3).

51.) The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible.

52.) There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Indeed we have seen your proof texts that you try to use as an argument. The error is that you do not properly argue an alternative meaning to the passages that point out the divinity of Christ. Nor do you find basis to reject his pre-existence. And you deny the passages that point out Jesus as God but only using hyperliteralist analysis instead of recognizing analogy and metaphor. These can be common errors for those of the autism spectrum.

You also forget that Christians do not deny Jesus' humanity but we also acknowledge his divinity. Your passages about his humanity possibly could be helpful for general purposes if needed, but not as an argument against him as God. The extent of your argument is like saying that a women cannot be a wife because she is a mother. But the hyperliteralist cannot accept that two qualities can exist together in Christ.

 

[Runningman]

So I guess you cannot consider Paul's writings to be scriptures. You can tear those out of your bible, unless it is an online bible.

They are Scripture, but the Bible doesn't say they are.

None need to repeat what you forget a few lines earlier.

I will repeat what was shared. Gen 15:1-5.

For those who do not know scripture, I share this:
John 20:26–28 (ESV)
26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

That isn't Thomas calling Jesus God. Prove it if you can. If you want to skip the wasting your breath part I can point out to you that Thomas did not say "you are my God"

For the unitarians, I suggest you read Buddhist literature or something that does not confuse you about Jesus.

Why do trinitarians always want to concert Christians to a different religion? one of you wanted me to join Islam, another Scientology, and now you saying read Buddhist literature.

Thanks. You remind me that prayer and fasting may be needed in your case.

Why would you need to pray and fast for me? You're the one is who talking all day about a non-existent trinity. I have already prayed for you before and I already have my answers about you. Are you asking for prayer?

 

[mikesw]

They are Scripture, but the Bible doesn't say they are.

I get it. Because Moses does not say Paul's letters are scripture, that is reason for you to reject what 2 Peter 3:16 notes

That isn't Thomas calling Jesus God. Prove it if you can. If you want to skip the wasting your breath part I can point out to you that Thomas did not say "you are my God"

That is what I summarized. Unitarians are hyperliteralists who cannot accept Thomas' statement because it only reflects that he realized Jesus as God rather than saying it for hyperliteralists as "you are my God." Other than hyperliteralism, I'm not sure why unitarians would reject that significance.

Why do trinitarians always want to concert Christians to a different religion? one of you wanted me to join Islam, another Scientology, and now you saying read Buddhist literature.

I just tell people about Christ, the only God begotten of the Father. If someone follows some belief other than that, they have to bear the consequence.

Why would you need to pray and fast for me? You're the one is who talking all day about a non-existent trinity. I have already prayed for you before and I already have my answers about you. Are you asking for prayer?

Now you deny God's existence. That makes you an atheist. Atheists normally would not have reason to pray.

 

[Peterlag]

Indeed we have seen your proof texts that you try to use as an argument. The error is that you do not properly argue an alternative meaning to the passages that point out the divinity of Christ. Nor do you find basis to reject his pre-existence. And you deny the passages that point out Jesus as God but only using hyperliteralist analysis instead of recognizing analogy and metaphor. These can be common errors for those of the autism spectrum.

You also forget that Christians do not deny Jesus' humanity but we also acknowledge his divinity. Your passages about his humanity possibly could be helpful for general purposes if needed, but not as an argument against him as God. The extent of your argument is like saying that a women cannot be a wife because she is a mother. But the hyperliteralist cannot accept that two qualities can exist together in Christ.

I can find Scripture that says a wife can be a monther. But I cannot find Scripture that says God can be a man.

 

[mikesw]

I can find Scripture that says a wife can be a monther. But I cannot find Scripture that says God can be a man.

Wow. Your intellect is so extensive. Sure. I figure it would be natural for unitarians to argue there's a verse saying a wife can be a "monther."

 

[Peterlag]

Questioning the Trinity​

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most widely held beliefs in mainstream Christianity. Ask most believers, and they will affirm it without hesitation: God is one, yet three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—co-equal, co-eternal, and of one essence. But ask for an explanation, and things get complicated.

Many who advocate for the Trinity find themselves in a difficult position when challenged to articulate it. They believe it because they have been told it is true, not necessarily because they have examined the Scriptures and reached that conclusion themselves. This can often result in a kind of intellectual retreat—a “foetal position” response—where believers acknowledge they can’t explain it, but insist it must be accepted on faith.
But why does this happen? Why do those who firmly hold to this doctrine struggle to explain it? And what does this say about the doctrine itself?

The Common Response: “It’s a Mystery”​

One of the most frequent defences of the Trinity is that it is beyond human understanding. “It’s a mystery,” people say. “We aren’t meant to fully comprehend it.”
While there’s no question that some aspects of God’s nature may be beyond human grasp, this reasoning raises a key concern: If God wants us to know Him, why would He define Himself in a way that is impossible to explain? The Bible consistently portrays God as desiring to be understood. Scripture is full of passages that describe His character, His purpose, and His expectations in clear and straightforward terms. The message of salvation is simple enough for a child to grasp. So why, when it comes to the nature of God Himself, should we accept a doctrine that is so confusing that even its strongest proponents admit they don’t understand it?

Deflection Tactics and False Psychology​

Because the Trinity is difficult to explain, discussions about it often take on a defensive tone. Those who challenge it are frequently met with responses designed to shift the focus away from the question itself.
For example:

• Appeal to Church Authority: “This is what the church has always taught, so who are we to question it?”
• Emotional Deflection: “Are you saying all the great theologians throughout history were wrong?”
• Intimidation by Complexity: “You just don’t understand theology well enough to grasp it.”
• Shaming the Questioner: “Denying the Trinity is heresy. You’re treading dangerous ground.”

These tactics reveal something important: Many who believe in the Trinity are uncomfortable discussing it at a theological level. If the doctrine were clear and biblically straightforward, there would be no need for such evasive strategies. The very fact that these deflections exist suggests that, deep down, many believers recognize the difficulty—but instead of questioning the doctrine, they retreat into positions that protect them from having to think about it too deeply.

The Clarity of a Biblical Unitarian View​

In contrast, the Christadelphian (or broader biblical unitarian) perspective presents a straightforward, consistent understanding of God:

• God is one individual being, the Father (Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:6).
• Jesus is the Son of God, not God Himself (Luke 1:35, John 20:17).
• The Holy Spirit is not a separate person but the power of God at work (Luke 1:35, Acts 2:17-18).

This perspective does not require intellectual gymnastics or theological paradoxes. It aligns with the way God speaks of Himself throughout the Bible and avoids the need for appeals to mystery or tradition.

Why This Matters​

Some may argue that this is just a theological debate that doesn’t impact day-to-day faith. But understanding God’s true nature is not a trivial issue. It affects how we relate to Him, how we pray, and how we understand the role of Jesus.
The Trinitarian position requires believers to accept something that they cannot fully explain—something that was not clearly taught by Jesus or the apostles but instead developed over centuries of church councils and philosophical debates. In contrast, a biblical unitarian understanding allows believers to read the Bible and simply take God at His word without theological complexity or contradiction.
So the question is this: Should we accept a doctrine simply because we’ve been told to, even if it doesn’t make sense? Or should we be willing to examine Scripture for ourselves, asking whether God has truly revealed Himself in a way that requires no confusion or mystery?

 

[Runningman]

I get it. Because Moses does not say Paul's letters are scripture, that is reason for you to reject what 2 Peter 3:16 notes

If I were you, I would worry about Peter's stated belief that distorting the Scripture will, quite frankly, get you destroyed. He didn't mince words with that. Provided that you have no evidence of a trinity in Scripture, you probably fall into the same category of people that Peter was referring to. If misunderstanding the Bible whether due to ignorance or a mental instability is enough to get one destroyed, what do you think will happen to people who go around bluntly stating things the Bible doesn't say?

Provided that Peter explicitly stated that Jesus is not God, you should probably repent.

2 Peter 1
2Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

That is what I summarized. Unitarians are hyperliteralists who cannot accept Thomas' statement because it only reflects that he realized Jesus as God rather than saying it for hyperliteralists as "you are my God." Other than hyperliteralism, I'm not sure why unitarians would reject that significance.

It's a well known fact that trinitarians are hyper-liberal with their interpretation of the Bible. I am hyper-conservative with reading the Bible. It's no different than when a democrat and republican talk about the same exact issues, but can't come to an agreement. We are on the same topic but miles apart. Why do you not believe what the Bible says when it's too literal for you? But when the Bible is near to stating what you literally believe, you don't have a probably with what it literally says? Try to see something here. You have a belief and you are only looking for verses to support it rather than supporting what the Bible says in a general sense.

I just tell people about Christ, the only God begotten of the Father. If someone follows some belief other than that, they have to bear the consequence.

Glad you know you have switched positions and are now saying that Jesus is the begotten son of God rather than an eternal, self-existent, self-sustaining God. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

Now you deny God's existence. That makes you an atheist. Atheists normally would not have reason to pray.

That's funny. I am a devout Christian and have much more than just faith. I know for a fact that God exists. It's funny where you get these ideas from.

 

[Capbook]

The present administration of God is in the time period of the New Testament known as Grace. It deals with the new covenant, and it belongs to the time that is called the administration of the mystery. It's a period in time that was not made known to any one prior to this administration because God kept it a secret since the world began. From this our Grace administration, we learn God’s secret purpose that He had placed in Himself, according to the administration of Grace, which was first revealed to the apostle Paul.

Even in the first book of the Scriptures, Noah found "grace" in the eyes of the LORD. See Bible lexicon definition below.
Many Bible words in the Old Testament that you can find the grace of God.
Grace is not a secret since the world began. See below;

Gen 6:8 But R1NoahH5146 R2foundH4672 favorH2580 in the eyesH5869 of the LORDH3068.
Exo 34:6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth;
Isa 30:18 Therefore the LORD longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him.

H2580
חן
chên
BDB Definition:
1) favour, grace, charm

 

[Capbook]

I agree with Acts 11:26, but you seem to show awareness that, based on the internal witness of the Bible, that the New Testament is never referred to as Scripture. Anyway, that isn't a debatable point as I thought everyone knew that. My point is, where is anything written about the "Word" in the Scripture Jesus or anyone else had access to at the beginning of his ministry?

Are you referring to Isaiah 61, where Jesus read it at the synagogue on the Sabbath? (Luke 4:18,19)

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

 

[Peterlag]

Even in the first book of the Scriptures, Noah found "grace" in the eyes of the LORD. See Bible lexicon definition below.
Many Bible words in the Old Testament that you can find the grace of God.
Grace is not a secret since the world began. See below;

Gen 6:8 But R1NoahH5146 R2foundH4672 favorH2580 in the eyesH5869 of the LORDH3068.
Exo 34:6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth;
Isa 30:18 Therefore the LORD longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; How blessed are all those who long for Him.

H2580
חן
chên
BDB Definition:
1) favour, grace, charm

The Law given by Moses is very different from the Grace and truth that came into existence by the life of Jesus Christ. The works of the flesh, the works of the Old Testament Law, and good behavior does not make us acceptable with God. We have grace and are under the Grace administration because God has created it to be available only by the life of Jesus Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Are you referring to Isaiah 61, where Jesus read it at the synagogue on the Sabbath? (Luke 4:18,19)

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Yeah Jesus read Scripture to them. Notice they always quoted OT verses when they talked about Scripture.

Here's another example below. Notice how the eunuch was reading Isaiah and not some letter by one of the apostles. Never happened.

Acts 8​

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:​

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,​

and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,​

so He did not open His mouth.​

33In His humiliation He was deprived of justice.​

Who can recount His descendants?​

For His life was removed from the earth.”​

Same with Paul, didn't represent his letters as Scripture. When Paul talked about Scripture he referred to the Old Testament. Here's an example of that:

Romans 4​

3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”​

 

[mikesw]

If I were you, I would worry about Peter's stated belief that distorting the Scripture will, quite frankly, get you destroyed. He didn't mince words with that. Provided that you have no evidence of a trinity in Scripture, you probably fall into the same category of people that Peter was referring to.

Uh. THomas said of Jesus "My God." John 1:18 says Jesus is God. If you cannot comprehend that, it is hardly trusting any conclusions you make.
John 1:18 (ESV)
18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

It is the ambiguity of Jesus as God combined with the Shema that you have to explain one way or another.

If misunderstanding the Bible whether due to ignorance or a mental instability is enough to get one destroyed, what do you think will happen to people who go around bluntly stating things the Bible doesn't say?

One leader was saying Paul was crazy. If you are speaking as an outsider and making that claim, then I am unified more with Paul's situation.

Provided that Peter explicitly stated that Jesus is not God, you should probably repent.

2 Peter 1
2Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

You are violating your hyperliteralist commitment this time. You are adding concepts not found in 2Pet 1:2 since it does not state "Jesus is not God." I think I am understanding more of the unitarian eisegetical process with this example

It's a well known fact that trinitarians are hyper-liberal with their interpretation of the Bible. I am hyper-conservative with reading the Bible.

If your ideas are hyper per your own admission, then you are identifying your own error.

It's no different than when a democrat and republican talk about the same exact issues, but can't come to an agreement. We are on the same topic but miles apart. Why do you not believe what the Bible says when it's too literal for you? But when the Bible is near to stating what you literally believe, you don't have a probably with what it literally says? \

You are disregarding the ambiguity, especially as noted above. Jesus is shown to be God. Your confusion is likely due to missing the multiple senses of "God" to include: God in a multi-person single God sense, and the narrower second sense of God narrowly as the Father. If you can start learning multiple senses of words, you can start understanding scripture.

Try to see something here. You have a belief and you are only looking for verses to support it rather than supporting what the Bible says in a general sense.

Glad you know you have switched positions and are now saying that Jesus is the begotten son of God rather than an eternal, self-existent, self-sustaining God. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

You like to twist and turn to distort meaning. You do that with scripture and now with what I share. You cannot study this topic now because you need the milk for now.

That's funny. I am a devout Christian and have much more than just faith. I know for a fact that God exists. It's funny where you get these ideas from.

Your ideas are equivalent to deny Christ as God and then it tends toward denying God's existence overall.

 

[Runningman]

Uh. THomas said of Jesus "My God." John 1:18 says Jesus is God. If you cannot comprehend that, it is hardly trusting any conclusions you make.
John 1:18 (ESV)
18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

You're reading it with a trinitarian bias. Thomas didn't say of Jesus "my God." Actually, John 20:28 is one of those verses that typically converts trinitarians away from their falsehoods because Thomas and the other apostles didn't believe Jesus could resurrect himself. No one in the Bible thought Jesus could resurrect himself, but rather that God resurrected Jesus. Thomas said "my God" not referring to Jesus, but rather referring to the previously mentioned God in the chapter. Thomas' God is the Father, not Jesus, Scripture says so.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

It is the ambiguity of Jesus as God combined with the Shema that you have to explain one way or another.

The Shema is something that should strike terror in your heart and I am surprised you would even make a brush with it. It's a powerful proof statement about the only God being the Father. Jesus said it is the most important as well.

Here's a question. Since Jesus went around explicitly teaching that the most important thing is that the only Lord God is the Father, then where does leave you and your ilk for ignoring it?

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Paul was even more direct than Jesus. Paul defined the Shema as the Father only.

1 Corinthians 8
4So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

One leader was saying Paul was crazy. If you are speaking as an outsider and making that claim, then I am unified more with Paul's situation.


You are violating your hyperliteralist commitment this time. You are adding concepts not found in 2Pet 1:2 since it does not state "Jesus is not God." I think I am understanding more of the unitarian eisegetical process with this example

It's not a convincing argument for you to just deny the Bible. We all have Bibles, we all have the Bible online, we can all look at 2 Peter 1:2 and see how it makes distinction between God and Jesus. It's basic English reading comprehension.

If your ideas are hyper per your own admission, then you are identifying your own error.

You are disregarding the ambiguity, especially as noted above. Jesus is shown to be God. Your confusion is likely due to missing the multiple senses of "God" to include: God in a multi-person single God sense, and the narrower second sense of God narrowly as the Father. If you can start learning multiple senses of words, you can start understanding scripture.

Where was Jesus ever shown to be God?

You like to twist and turn to distort meaning. You do that with scripture and now with what I share. You cannot study this topic now because you need the milk for now.

Your ideas are equivalent to deny Christ as God and then it tends toward denying God's existence overall.

I just agree with Jesus being the begotten son of God and messiah just as the Bible says. The Bible also teaches Jesus is created per John 1:3,14, Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14.

John 1
18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

So let me ask you a question to gauge how far off the path you are. Who do you say the Son of Man is?

 

[mikesw]

You're reading it with a trinitarian bias. Thomas didn't say of Jesus "my God." Actually, John 20:28 is one of those verses that typically converts trinitarians away from their falsehoods because Thomas and the other apostles didn't believe Jesus could resurrect himself. No one in the Bible thought Jesus could resurrect himself, but rather that God resurrected Jesus. Thomas said "my God" not referring to Jesus, but rather referring to the previously mentioned God in the chapter. Thomas' God is the Father, not Jesus, Scripture says so.

Did I get you right? Thomas saw the Father standing right next to the Son but that was failed to be mentioned by John? I think you are really going off track here in order to deny who Christ is.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

You keep on sharing weird ideas -- as if Jesus would ascend to some other god. I guess I can sympathize with your confusion but

The Shema is something that should strike terror in your heart and I am surprised you would even make a brush with it. It's a powerful proof statement about the only God being the Father. Jesus said it is the most important as well.

You still have not recognized that Jesus cannot be a separate god. He can only be of the same God. You still have time to work these ideas out and not deny the passages showing that Jesus is God. He is Son of God.

Here's a question. Since Jesus went around explicitly teaching that the most important thing is that the only Lord God is the Father, then where does leave you and your ilk for ignoring it?

Mark 12
29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Paul was even more direct than Jesus. Paul defined the Shema as the Father only.

Uh. I'm not sure where you read “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God our Father, the Lord is One.
I guess I need to check a unitarian bible for that one.

1 Corinthians 8
4So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

Okay. We know there is no God but God. We know Jesus is God and not a separate god. What shall we examine next?

It's not a convincing argument for you to just deny the Bible. We all have Bibles, we all have the Bible online, we can all look at 2 Peter 1:2 and see how it makes distinction between God and Jesus. It's basic English reading comprehension.

Where was Jesus ever shown to be God?

I just agree with Jesus being the begotten son of God and messiah just as the Bible says. The Bible also teaches Jesus is created per John 1:3,14, Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14.

John 1
18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

So let me ask you a question to gauge how far off the path you are. Who do you say the Son of Man is?

You deny the ambiguity in favor of denying who Christ is.
Even the High Priest saw Jesus quoting of Dan 7:13-14 as blasphemy. You just see it as Jesus' confusion.

I would really expect you to have developed some arguments in favor of unitarianism after the 18 or so months you have been around here.

 

[Runningman]

Did I get you right? Thomas saw the Father standing right next to the Son but that was failed to be mentioned by John? I think you are really going off track here in order to deny who Christ is.

You keep on sharing weird ideas -- as if Jesus would ascend to some other god. I guess I can sympathize with your confusion but


You still have not recognized that Jesus cannot be a separate god. He can only be of the same God. You still have time to work these ideas out and not deny the passages showing that Jesus is God. He is Son of God.


Uh. I'm not sure where you read “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God our Father, the Lord is One.
I guess I need to check a unitarian bible for that one.


Okay. We know there is no God but God. We know Jesus is God and not a separate god. What shall we examine next?

You deny the ambiguity in favor of denying who Christ is.
Even the High Priest saw Jesus quoting of Dan 7:13-14 as blasphemy. You just see it as Jesus' confusion.

I would really expect you to have developed some arguments in favor of unitarianism after the 18 or so months you have been around here.

As I read each line of your thoughts and opinions. I realize how much of a tangled mess your beliefs are. Jesus had just stated who his and his brothers' God is in John 20:17 when he said he is ascending to his and their God/Father. So when Thomas said "my God" it was really quite a stretch that abruptly, out of the blue, without precedent that Jesus is suddenly Thomas' personal god, totally contrary Jesus preaching every day about his Father being God.

My point about the Shema is that the Shema says there is One God. Only the Father is ever called that One God in the Bible. Not Jesus, not anyone else.

It's interesting that you have decided to side with Jesus' accusers in their kangaroo court against him. Jesus said they are liars and that their father is the devil yet you're quoting the very people Jesus basically said to not listen to. And you just quoted Daniel 7:13-14 which states the exact polar opposite of what your claims are.

So the Son of Man is the same exact person as the Son of God. There was no Son of God who came down from heaven, not what the Bible says. The Son of God (Jesus) and all of the other Sons of God are all human, always were, always will be.

If your answer about who the Son of Man is doesn't match Peter's answer then you don't have an inspired answer.

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.

 

[Capbook]

The Law given by Moses is very different from the Grace and truth that came into existence by the life of Jesus Christ. The works of the flesh, the works of the Old Testament Law, and good behavior does not make us acceptable with God. We have grace and are under the Grace administration because God has created it to be available only by the life of Jesus Christ.

What's the different between the grace Moses received from God and the grace the gift of Jesus in Ephesians 2:8.

 

[Capbook]

Yeah Jesus read Scripture to them. Notice they always quoted OT verses when they talked about Scripture.

Here's another example below. Notice how the eunuch was reading Isaiah and not some letter by one of the apostles. Never happened.

Acts 8​

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:​

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,​

and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,​

so He did not open His mouth.​

33In His humiliation He was deprived of justice.​

Who can recount His descendants?​

For His life was removed from the earth.”​

Same with Paul, didn't represent his letters as Scripture. When Paul talked about Scripture he referred to the Old Testament. Here's an example of that:

Romans 4​

3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”​

Yes, but may I know what's the point of these?