All Claims of The Son's Deity

[101G]

@101G

As Jesus Christ once told Thomas, & be not faithless, but believing!

"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." John 20:27-28

Correct, Jesus is Lord and LORD. the same "ONE" person.

101G.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus would have been crucified the first time he explicitly said "I am God."

So in your mind you think the Jews could of killed God. And so God could not say who he was because He was afraid. Image if you will that you are going to kill God. Just stop your mind for a few seconds and honestly think about that. Does it cross your mind that you just might be picking a fight with someone that is just a little itty bitty tad bit bigger than what you could handle?

You do not follow scripture very well. Jesus as the incarnation of God would be killed. That is the obvious point that you just totally missed. This is not ending God's "life" since he is spirit.
Remember the humbling? This meant Jesus was not going around striking people dead because he could. It is a basic principle that God establishes certain constraints in what he will do and how interaction with man would be done -- incorporated within promises -- like that to humanity given to Noah. So we could see that in Jesus where he does not go and say he is God during his incarnation just to avoid hundreds of attempts to stone him for what the Jews think as blasphemy.
Maybe someday you will realize what God can do and even what he has constrained himself not to do.
However, we do see him walking on water and also passing through a crowd of leaders that wanted to grab him (Luke 4:28-30).

 

[mikesw]

#1 The pnuema is used of God Himself or the "Father". "God" is pneuma." (John 4:24) It is His Divine Nature that is spoken of. . . . #2 The word pneuma is used of Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. He, in resurrection, became a quickening or life-giving pneuma (1 Cor. 15:45) . . . (Word Studies of the Holy Spirit, p. 14,15)

As you see above he does mention "the second Person of the Trinity" --- I don't believe in the Trinity so I don't believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity but I do believe Jesus was resurrection and became a life-giving spirit. As you can imagine there is a whole list of occurrences and usages of spirit with their corresponding verses and not all meanings have to do with being a 'person.'

Since I am not New Age then I don't know how they speak therefore I cannot stop doing something I don't recognize.


Yes, Jesus walked on water . . . what's that got to do with anything?
So, you believe Jesus poured out the third person of the Trinity on the day of Penecost . . . ok.

#14 Pneuma Hagion. This expression (which occurs fifty times) without articles, is never used of the Giver (the Holy Spirit), but always of His Gift. What this gift is may be seen by comparing Acts 1.4,5 with Luke xxiv. 49, where "the promise of the Father" is (in Acts) called pnuema hagion (holy spirit), and (in Luke) it is called "power from on high". This "power" includes whatever spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit may be pleased to bestow. . . . . Whenever spirit is said to fall, or to be given, or to fill, or be baptized with, it is always pneuma without the article, or pneuma hagion. (Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, p. 214)

Your thinking can be corrected while you are alive also!

After all these years, I think 'a better description of the Godhead' has given way to "it's a mystery" . . . .

so you went from knowledge to mystery and ignorance.

 

[mikesw]

Oh, but no I did not forget. I took the time to write down what he had said in his blog post.

I have changed my major doctrine once - from Trinitarian to Unitarian. Other specific areas, yes, I have also changed my mind.

However, moving from truth to heresy with a denial of critical passages is not the right direction.

 

[Peterlag]

You do not follow scripture very well. Jesus as the incarnation of God would be killed. That is the obvious point that you just totally missed. This is not ending God's "life" since he is spirit.
Remember the humbling? This meant Jesus was not going around striking people dead because he could. It is a basic principle that God establishes certain constraints in what he will do and how interaction with man would be done -- incorporated within promises -- like that to humanity given to Noah. So we could see that in Jesus where he does not go and say he is God during his incarnation just to avoid hundreds of attempts to stone him for what the Jews think as blasphemy.
Maybe someday you will realize what God can do and even what he has constrained himself not to do.
However, we do see him walking on water and also passing through a crowd of leaders that wanted to grab him (Luke 4:28-30).

Trinitarians commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

 

[amazing grace]

so you went from knowledge to mystery and ignorance.

I don't believe so.

 

[mikesw]

Trinitarians commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

If some say "they" tried to kill him for a claim to be God, then those Trinitarians have conflated the High Priest's response with the broader people's awareness. So you have a point of correction if we find that to be a true fact.
Only the leaders appear to have recognized the divinity claim made clearer only in the "trials" of Jesus at the end. But maybe some Bible translations forget to include Matt 26:64-68.

 

[amazing grace]

However, moving from truth to heresy with a denial of critical passages is not the right direction.

More like leaving idolatry and heresy of a Triune God to belief in the ONE true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[mikesw]

More like leaving idolatry and heresy of a Triune God to belief in the ONE true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If you reject Trinitarian doctrine as if it were the polytheism heresy, no wonder you are confused. Jesus was never suggested to be a separate god. Just remember that detail when you try to deny the scriptural testimony of the Triune God.

 

[amazing grace]

If you reject Trinitarian doctrine as if it were the polytheism heresy, no wonder you are confused. Jesus was never suggested to be a separate god. Just remember that detail when you try to deny the scriptural testimony of the Triune God.

Let's see: we have God the Father who dwells in heaven . . . we have God the Son, a 'human nature', who is God in the flesh on earth and we have God the Holy Spirit. Each of these 'persons' but not 'persons' as to the normal definition, but in a specific way known only to Trinitarians . . . Each are distinct (normal definition for distinct - recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type) and separate (normal definition for separate - forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself) yet ONE in nature, essence (please note definition for distinct). . . three separate and distinct beings, things, whatever are NOT ONE.
I'M CONFUSED!!!!!! It's not me who is confused - I have one God who is also known as the Holy Spirit and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who pours out the gift of holy spirit to whoever repents and believes. . . in simplistic terms anyone can understand.

Those who believe in said Trinity can not explain it in a manner that is understandable to others (nor to themselves!) so they have to claim that it's a mystery. Thanks but no thanks -

 

[mikesw]

Let's see: we have God the Father who dwells in heaven . . . we have God the Son, a 'human nature', who is God in the flesh on earth and we have God the Holy Spirit. Each of these 'persons' but not 'persons' as to the normal definition, but in a specific way known only to Trinitarians . .

you really should stay out of trinitarian discussions if you do not know how "person" is used in these. As to "human nature," I'm not sure how exactly that applies and may be an unanswerable metaphysical issue in the incarnation of the Son of God. I do not think you are fully ignorant of the philosophical concept but maybe you are.

. Each are distinct (normal definition for distinct - recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type) and separate (normal definition for separate - forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself) yet ONE in nature, essence (please note definition for distinct). . . three separate and distinct beings, things, whatever are NOT ONE.
I'M CONFUSED!!!!!! It's not me who is confused -

I know you are confused. That explains why you do not hold to orthodox understanding. Just remember that Christ Jesus cannot be a separate god, as some unitarians push the argument. Therefore, Jesus must be of the same God, as found in John 1:18.

I have one God who is also known as the Holy Spirit and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who pours out the gift of holy spirit to whoever repents and believes. . . in simplistic terms anyone can understand.

Great. If you realize it is one God, that is a start. Just remember the divinity of Christ in this. The goal is not to find something anyone can understand. The goal is to know Christ Jesus in his full sense.

Those who believe in said Trinity can not explain it in a manner that is understandable to others (nor to themselves!) so they have to claim that it's a mystery. Thanks but no thanks -

You said you like keeping it a mystery. Only Jesus has revealed God because he is God incarnate although God in purely spirit sense is invisible.

 

[amazing grace]

you really should stay out of trinitarian discussions if you do not know how "person" is used in these. As to "human nature," I'm not sure how exactly that applies and may be an unanswerable metaphysical issue in the incarnation of the Son of God. I do not think you are fully ignorant of the philosophical concept but maybe you are.

Instead of telling me to stay out of trinitarian discussions - Why don't you explain how 'person' is used?
All I know that usually when the subject of Jesus dying for our sins and God cannot die OR Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted . . . . the response is something like only his 'human nature' died ------- his 'human nature' was tempted . . .

I know you are confused. That explains why you do not hold to orthodox understanding. Just remember that Christ Jesus cannot be a separate god, as some unitarians push the argument. Therefore, Jesus must be of the same God, as found in John 1:18.

I know that Jesus is not a separate god . . . Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.
It is the Trinitarian doctrine that says Jesus is God which since he is not the Father and the Father is the only true God, then that would equate to another god. Jesus came to make known the Father. . . . the only Son, who is at the Father's side.

Great. If you realize it is one God, that is a start. Just remember the divinity of Christ in this. The goal is not to find something anyone can understand. The goal is to know Christ Jesus in his full sense.

You said you like keeping it a mystery. Only Jesus has revealed God because he is God incarnate although God in purely spirit sense is invisible.

No, I didn't say I like keeping anything a mystery, below is what I said.

Jesus is not God incarnate. If anything he is the word incarnate and no the word is not God . . . the word is descriptive of God - the word is the full expression of God and that word, which is closely related to God's wisdom is embodied in the human being, which is why he is the 'radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature' ------- Jesus Christ, the human being, the man, the Son of God, the Lord's Messiah.

<snip>
Those who believe in said Trinity can not explain it in a manner that is understandable to others (nor to themselves!) so they have to claim that it's a mystery. Thanks but no thanks -

 

[mikesw]

Instead of telling me to stay out of trinitarian discussions - Why don't you explain how 'person' is used?

The definition will not mean anything to you since you will still want a man-centered concept and deny the meaning

"For the Cappadocian writers (Basil of Caeserea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa), the term “person” had relational significance. A “person” is an ecstatic center of relationship who stands under (subsists) or in relation to another. What I am is distinguished by what I am not. I am “this” and not “that,” yet, without “that” I cannot be “this.” I am unique and distinct but not isolated and separate." Quoted from https://christogenesis.org/trinity-and-personhood/
I suppose the idea is a bit like your concept of "person" but take the corporeal element out.
The purpose of such conception is to make it possible to talk about God without falling into the limitations of human-centric terms. John was not saying Jesus is a separate God. And don't complain about the language but only the reason you reject John's words that leads to this discussion.

All I know that usually when the subject of Jesus dying for our sins and God cannot die OR Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted . . . . the response is something like only his 'human nature' died ------- his 'human nature' was tempted . . .

You forget that Jesus's body can die. That does not mean God died. If it any any more complex metaphysically, we at least can recognize that much. It seems so odd to miss that basic idea.
Then you say Jesus could not be tempted if he has two natures -- both human and as God. Are you actually saying some pretty woman could not walk past a human trying to draw him to her? That seems to be a ridiculous argument that such a moment is not possible. The crazy thing is that unitarians keep denying outside temptation is possible and thus they are playing by the same fallacy, as if just following some unitarian playbook.

I know that Jesus is not a separate god . . . Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.
It is the Trinitarian doctrine that says Jesus is God which since he is not the Father and the Father is the only true God, then that would equate to another god.

So you would be calling John a polytheist, which is obviously wrong. You would give up the divinity of Christ because you cannot admit he, as the Word, is God. I prefer to hold to what John says. It is for us to make sense of Jesus as God while not supposing this is polytheism. It is just what scripture gives us to work with.

Jesus came to make known the Father. . . . the only Son, who is at the Father's side.

No, I didn't say I like keeping anything a mystery, below is what I said.

Jesus is not God incarnate. If anything he is the word incarnate and no the word is not God . .

So forgetful you are. John notes that the Word was God. It seems you discard that concept since it is offensive to you

. the word is descriptive of God - the word is the full expression of God and that word, which is closely related to God's wisdom is embodied in the human being, which is why he is the 'radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature' ------- Jesus Christ, the human being, the man, the Son of God, the Lord's Messiah.

 

[amazing grace]

The definition will not mean anything to you since you will still want a man-centered concept and deny the meaning

"For the Cappadocian writers (Basil of Caeserea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa), the term “person” had relational significance. A “person” is an ecstatic center of relationship who stands under (subsists) or in relation to another. What I am is distinguished by what I am not. I am “this” and not “that,” yet, without “that” I cannot be “this.” I am unique and distinct but not isolated and separate." Quoted from https://christogenesis.org/trinity-and-personhood/
I suppose the idea is a bit like your concept of "person" but take the corporeal element out. The purpose of such conception is to make it possible to talk about God without falling into the limitations of human-centric terms. John was not saying Jesus is a separate God. And don't complain about the language but only the reason you reject John's words that leads to this discussion.

Thank you, I think, for your definition of 'person' although I would have preferred, in your own words, your definition of a 'person' because what you provided further confused me! It is my idea of a 'person' but take the corporeal element out? [A corporeal element is something that has a physical form and can be touched or seen, as opposed to something spiritual or incorporeal. It refers to material, tangible things that have a body, whether living or inanimate.] So, a person without a body?
The Greek word for person is anthropos - "human being," "person," or "mankind".
Because I do not accept your understanding of John's gospel does not mean that I reject John's words.

You forget that Jesus's body can die. That does not mean God died. If it any any more complex metaphysically, we at least can recognize that much. It seems so odd to miss that basic idea.

???? I know Jesus could die and he did die, his whole self. I didn't say God died for God is an immortal being he CANNOT DIE -

Then you say Jesus could not be tempted if he has two natures -- both human and as God. Are you actually saying some pretty woman could not walk past a human trying to draw him to her? That seems to be a ridiculous argument that such a moment is not possible. The crazy thing is that unitarians keep denying outside temptation is possible and thus they are playing by the same fallacy, as if just following some unitarian playbook.

Nor, did I say Jesus could not be tempted because clearly he was. It's God who cannot be tempted. (James 1:13).
Jesus being God cannot be tempted yet as a man he can be tempted . . . which in and of itself is pure contradiction.

So you would be calling John a polytheist, which is obviously wrong.

Where did I call John a polytheist?

It is the Trinitarian doctrine that says Jesus is God which since he is not the Father and the Father is the only true God, then that would equate to another god. Jesus came to make known the Father. . . . the only Son, who is at the Father's side.

You would give up the divinity of Christ because you cannot admit he, as the Word, is God. I prefer to hold to what John says. It is for us to make sense of Jesus as God while not supposing this is polytheism. It is just what scripture gives us to work with.

So forgetful you are. John notes that the Word was God. It seems you discard that concept since it is offensive to you

True, it is for us to make sense of God for who He is and Jesus for who he is . . . I believe we will be held accountable.
If we go purely by what scripture gives us to work with - there is no Triune God, no God the Son, no dual nature god-man, no God come in the flesh, etc.

the word was God . . . 'God' without the definite article is used as an adjectival manner.

Jesus is not God incarnate. If anything he is the word incarnate and no the word is not God . . . the word is descriptive of God - the word is the full expression of God and that word, which is closely related to God's wisdom is embodied in the human being, which is why he is the 'radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature' ------- Jesus Christ, the human being, the man, the Son of God, the Lord's Messiah.

 

[mikesw]

Thank you, I think, for your definition of 'person' although I would have preferred, in your own words, your definition of a 'person' because what you provided further confused me! It is my idea of a 'person' but take the corporeal element out? [A corporeal element is something that has a physical form and can be touched or seen, as opposed to something spiritual or incorporeal. It refers to material, tangible things that have a body, whether living or inanimate.] So, a person without a body?

oops. right. I should have said incorporeal. so it is like aspects of what we could call a person -- such as consciousness, a relational existence like people do, a will, but, in this case of special interest is God the Son.

The Greek word for person is anthropos - "human being," "person," or "mankind".
Because I do not accept your understanding of John's gospel does not mean that I reject John's words.

Unless you have a convincing meaning from John's words, it remains a rejection of his words.

???? I know Jesus could die and he did die, his whole self. I didn't say God died for God is an immortal being he CANNOT DIE -

Right. so again. Just because Jesus' body died, that does not mean his divine essence, as God, died. But some may share that idea perhaps in a figurative way. If it is any more complex metaphysically, we at least can recognize that much. It seems so odd to miss that basic idea.

Nor, did I say Jesus could not be tempted because clearly he was. It's God who cannot be tempted. (James 1:13).
Jesus being God cannot be tempted yet as a man he can be tempted . . . which in and of itself is pure contradiction.

Where did I call John a polytheist?

So Jesus in two natures has the possibility of being tempted from outside factors while his will and divine Sonship is not tempted. That should not be hard to figure out.

True, it is for us to make sense of God for who He is and Jesus for who he is . . . I believe we will be held accountable.
If we go purely by what scripture gives us to work with - there is no Triune God, no God the Son, no dual nature god-man, no God come in the flesh, etc.

Indeed a denial of the Son as God could cause one to be held accountable. It is possible to waver from belief. I had interpreted scripture as saying Jesus was not divine, but that bad interpretation did not last long. People can have ignorance or momentary falling away from sound doctrine.

the word was God . . . 'God' without the definite article is used as an adjectival manner.

haha. Great eisegesis. The Word was with God and the Word was godly and then was God found in the bosom of God in John 1:18. Your idea really is confusing there.

 

[Victoria]

View attachment 2349

I've gotta admit, this cracked me up!
The Unitarian Times

 

[Victoria]

Good so you agree that it is only "ONE" person who is God...... JESUS, correct.

101G.

Jesus most certainly was God manifest in the flesh "aka" the Son of God, the Christ... correct!
However, Jesus Christ is NOT God the Father, 'nor is Jesus God the Holy Spirit. That's the difference

Godhead is mentioned three times (i.e. Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9).

During His earthly ministry, He commanded His disciples to...

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Matthew 28:19

You're not suggesting that Jesus spoke to Himself from above at the Transfiguration, are you?

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid."
Matthew 17:5-6

Are you aware that the apostle Paul warns us of having another Jesus, & another spirit?

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

So what we believe about who the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit matters.

- The Holy Spirit comforts: John 14:26
- The Holy Spirit speaks: John 16:13; Acts 13:2; 4
- The Holy Spirit could be grieved: Ephesians 4:30
- The Holy Spirit could be quenched: 1 Thessalonians 5:19
- The Holy Spirit could be LIED to: Acts 5:3-4

 

[Victoria]

We have enough of the Word of God in copies that I have been able to put it together so as to tap into the spirit of Christ and walk in him.

So although God Himself literally put His own reputation on the line, telling us His Word is inspired, preserved, & inerrant... you're basically claiming that along came two apostate men, & Textual Critics since, stating otherwise. God therefore lied, & failed. Am I correct?

Let's first see what God Almighty Himself has to say on this issue.

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above ALL thy name." Psalm 138:2

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them,
O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."
Psalm 19:7

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

"He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations." Psalm 105:8

"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:"
Isaiah 30:8

"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to ALL generations." Psalm 33:11

"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Psalm 119:152

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to ALL generations." Psalm 100:5

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isaiah 59:21

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[101G]

Jesus most certainly was God manifest in the flesh "aka" the Son of God, the Christ... correct!
However, Jesus Christ is NOT God the Father, 'nor is Jesus God the Holy Spirit. That's the difference

101G suggest you read the post https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-eternal-son.2618/post-203681

and then get back with 101G for a proper discussion.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Matthew 28:19

is not the ...... TITLES ..... Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the Person name JESUS? scripture, Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
the NAME "JESUS" is the holder of the title Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. supportive scripture, LISTEN CAREFULLY "V", 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:18 "And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

now Victoria, is the Lord God Almighty your Father, or the "LORD, (all caps) your father? .... (smile), now think before you answer. for if the LORD, (all caps) is your Father, then you denied the Lord as your Father as 2 Corinthians 6:18 clearly states. if not, then you have two Fathers. or else the LORD and the Lord is the same ONE PERSON, your choice.

101G.

 

[amazing grace]

oops. right. I should have said incorporeal. so it is like aspects of what we could call a person -- such as consciousness, a relational existence like people do, a will, but, in this case of special interest is God the Son.

So God come in the flesh, i.e. God the Son is a body which holds God's consciousness and a relational existence as a Son?
If God is also the Father then - a Son to whom? Or is there a distinct God who is the Father?

I think in its simplest meaning - God gave his only Son by a miraculous conception . . . that child was born of a woman as all human beings. God had a relationship with Jesus as his God and his Father. There is no God the Son.

Unless you have a convincing meaning from John's words, it remains a rejection of his words.

Well, you will always have the opinion that I will never have a convincing meaning from John's words . . . so in your opinion, I will always have a rejection of his words . . . which is a false opinion.

Right. so again. Just because Jesus' body died, that does not mean his divine essence, as God, died. But some may share that idea perhaps in a figurative way. If it is any more complex metaphysically, we at least can recognize that much. It seems so odd to miss that basic idea.

I think in its simplest meaning - Jesus died as all men die. He was buried and after three days and three nights, God his Father raised him from the dead and Jesus, the second Adam, became a life-giving spirit.

So Jesus in two natures has the possibility of being tempted from outside factors while his will and divine Sonship is not tempted. That should not be hard to figure out.

IOW, his human nature was tempted but his divine nature wasn't tempted or the 100% man was tempted but the 100% God was not tempted? Half of him could be tempted but the other half couldn't be tempted? BTW, if HIS WILL was not tempted then why tempt him at all? AND how is that being "tempted in every respect as we are" . . .

Indeed a denial of the Son as God could cause one to be held accountable. It is possible to waver from belief. I had interpreted scripture as saying Jesus was not divine, but that bad interpretation did not last long. People can have ignorance or momentary falling away from sound doctrine.

Nope, NOT true. By grace we are saved through faith - faith in Jesus Christ [Eph. 2]; those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life . . .[John 3] Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. [Rom. 5] . . .confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [Rom. 10]. . . "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [Acts 16] . . . I see no requirement of belief in JESUS AS GOD, or in GOD THE SON or in a god-man.

haha. Great eisegesis. The Word was with God and the Word was godly and then was God found in the bosom of God in John 1:18. Your idea really is confusing there.

In Greek, 'word' has the definite article and 'God' does not. This makes 'word' the subject of the sentence and 'God' the predicate nominative, where it serves as an adjective describing the logos. The word theos is used to describe the qualitative nature of the logos, but does not say that the logos is the one true God. That would have required the use of the definite article in Greek (ho theos rather than theos) [Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1996, pp 266-269]

NEB - "And what God was, the Word was." qualitative - not identical. Jesus embodied all the characteristics of God being "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" . . . NOT GOD HIMSELF.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was fully expressive of God - the word God's communication, God's expression, God's plans and purposes for the salvation and redemption of mankind, the offspring of the woman (Gen. 3:15); "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations." [Ps. 33:11]; the word represents the innermost thoughts and very heart of God --- that is what 'was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth . . . No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Jesus is not God incarnate. If anything he is the word incarnate and no the word is not God . . . the word is descriptive of God - the word is the full expression of God and that word, which is closely related to God's wisdom is embodied in the human being, which is why he is the 'radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature' ------- Jesus Christ, the human being, the man, the Son of God, the Lord's Messiah.