All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Peterlag]

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

I have no idea what you are referring to when you wrote...

"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?"

There are no orginals. All we have is copies of copies and the problem even on this website is I can quote a verse and someone else here can quote the same verse from a different Bible that says something completely different.

 

[mikesw]

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

Also it points out the error of unitarians relying on proof texts instead of proper exegesis.

 

[mikesw]

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?

You are right to a point. The Son is the second person and has his own consciousness and a relational existence continuing into his incarnation. But you fail to realize that the sense of "God" is used two ways -- both as the encompassing sense of the Trinity and also as the Father. Too bad you are steeped in polytheist concepts of this such that you cannot shift over to the basic truths shared in John. You failed to even apply the concepts I shared earlier so you could speak in terms of persons rather than polytheism.
All this contributes to the image that you are contesting a strawman view of Christian theology rather than the actual one.

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.

haha. I've not checked deeply into God the Son concept. so I could be wrong to say Jesus through incarnation becomes recognized as the Son of God. Either way, we see that Spirit initiated the pregnancy of Mary such that Jesus is both the son of Mary and Son of God. That is the more direct way to recognize the reason for the virgin birth, even if it does not seem the "simplest." I am more interested in accuracy than simplicity.

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.

The problem is that you hardly should be sharing a novel concept of Jesus unless you have convincing arguments for that. All we see is proof texts often initiated by John Schoen... To accept these proof texts, we have to deny the passages that speak of the divinity of Christ and of his preexistence. That is something I'm not willing to do.

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.

You state things okay except you miss the divinity of Christ remaining through death and that the Son shared again in the glory he had before his incarnation.

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" . . .

Uh. The stupidity of Satan or just his sheer determination to thwart Jesus, as anticipated in Gen 3:15, is what we see here.
The solutions of two wills has been mentioned. So you forgot the context of orthodoxy discussion. It is like you are trying to suggest we are seeing his divine nature unable to comprehend what is happening with his human nature. Yet you allude to the passage that shows this temptation was unusual since Jesus was being tempted in the same way as man -- which only makes sense if, as Hebrews 1 shows, that Jesus also is divine. Essentially you fail to learn the context from Hebrews 1

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.

I recognize that God calls people to himself and they may not learn much about Jesus before dying suddenly. So it is not how much we know but rather that God has called a person to himself. I shared that people may even fail to recognize the divinity of Christ and still be saved. It may be bad, however, if they strongly deny who Christ is. I cannot quite stand as a judge in that person's life.

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]

Indeed that is a good example of twisting the point by Daniel Wallace. The sense is that the Word has all the qualities of God in essence. So this would not exclude consciousness, will, divinity. You have to not just avoid proof texts from scripture but also of doing that with scholars' writings.

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.

This NEB affirms how Wallace's description applies. So you have just affirmed that the Word has the same qualities or attributes of God. He cannot be ultimately absence of his divinity nor can he just be the ideas of God. The Word, and thus Christ, indicates that divinity. Great point.

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.

The diminishing of Jesus' nature has already been revealed as a bad teaching. But your challenges to the proper understanding have indeed helped me see how much more solid the evidence is of the Triune God in scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

You are right to a point. The Son is the second person and has his own consciousness and a relational existence continuing into his incarnation. But you fail to realize that the sense of "God" is used two ways -- both as the encompassing sense of the Trinity and also as the Father. Too bad you are steeped in polytheist concepts of this such that you cannot shift over to the basic truths shared in John. You failed to even apply the concepts I shared earlier so you could speak in terms of persons rather than polytheism.
All this contributes to the image that you are contesting a strawman view of Christian theology rather than the actual one.

The sense of "God" is used two ways????? Where? By whom? I posed a question which should be an easy one for a Trinitarian to answer but I only get accusations of having polytheism concepts thrown back at me!

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?

which part was "right to a point"? You referenced God the Son so I asked a question which looking at it now, it's not to clear so let me try to word it more plainly: We have God the Son - we have God the Father - who is God the Father's Son? God the Son? If Jesus is God the Son who is his God and Father? As in before he ascended - 'I'm ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your God.' or as in 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'........
Let's pretend, if you can, that this is a legitimate question from a new believer.

haha. I've not checked deeply into God the Son concept. so I could be wrong to say Jesus through incarnation becomes recognized as the Son of God. Either way, we see that Spirit initiated the pregnancy of Mary such that Jesus is both the son of Mary and Son of God. That is the more direct way to recognize the reason for the virgin birth, even if it does not seem the "simplest." I am more interested in accuracy than simplicity.

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.

Then why use the term? I gave you accurate terms:

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.

John 3:16, Luke 1:35, Gal. 4:4; Rom. 15:6, 1 John 1:3..............searched for the phrase 'God the Son' -0- I prefer accuracy also.
Yes, Jesus carries both titles Son of Man and Son of God.

The problem is that you hardly should be sharing a novel concept of Jesus unless you have convincing arguments for that. All we see is proof texts often initiated by John Schoen... To accept these proof texts, we have to deny the passages that speak of the divinity of Christ and of his preexistence. That is something I'm not willing to do.

I do have John's book but I really don't recall using it for proof text.

You state things okay except you miss the divinity of Christ remaining through death and that the Son shared again in the glory he had before his incarnation.

Jesus remained God through death???
Jesus entered his glory after his suffering, death and resurrection. "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. [Luke 24:26,27] the glory promised him after he accomplished the work God gave him to do........
Uh. The stupidity of Satan or just his sheer determination to thwart Jesus, as anticipated in Gen 3:15, is what we see here.

Uh. The stupidity of Satan or just his sheer determination to thwart Jesus, as anticipated in Gen 3:15, is what we see here.
The solutions of two wills has been mentioned. So you forgot the context of orthodoxy discussion. It is like you are trying to suggest we are seeing his divine nature unable to comprehend what is happening with his human nature. Yet you allude to the passage that shows this temptation was unusual since Jesus was being tempted in the same way as man -- which only makes sense if, as Hebrews 1 shows, that Jesus also is divine. Essentially you fail to learn the context from Hebrews 1

Yes, Genesis 3:15 had to be fulfilled and is still being fulfilled.
I have heard some say that 'God never ceases to be God.'
Is that what you mean by - "his divine nature unable to comprehend what is happening with his human nature." Is that saying that even while he was the Son - he was God?

#1 We have the Son who has his own will which can be tempted . . . right?
#2 yet the Son is still God who has his own will and cannot be tempted...... right?
#3 Is that how Jesus resisted the temptations because he was God and God cannot be tempted?
#4 Hebrews 4:15 does not show his temptations to be unusual. . . . For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. . . .
#5 bottom line - because he never ceases to be God; he wasn't tempted because God cannot be tempted.
#6 making Hebrews 4:15 a lie because we are not God, therefore he was not 'tempted as we are'
#7 and of course, then he would be without sin because he is God . . . . What a denigration of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Hebrews 1 does not show Jesus as deity.

I recognize that God calls people to himself and they may not learn much about Jesus before dying suddenly. So it is not how much we know but rather that God has called a person to himself. I shared that people may even fail to recognize the divinity of Christ and still be saved. It may be bad, however, if they strongly deny who Christ is. I cannot quite stand as a judge in that person's life.

But where do you get that information?
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true." [John 5:30-32]
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. [1 John 5:9,10]

Indeed that is a good example of twisting the point by Daniel Wallace. The sense is that the Word has all the qualities of God in essence. So this would not exclude consciousness, will, divinity. You have to not just avoid proof texts from scripture but also of doing that with scholars' writings.

Do you have a correct excerpt by Daniel Wallace that shows where any twisting was done?

This NEB affirms how Wallace's description applies. So you have just affirmed that the Word has the same qualities or attributes of God. He cannot be ultimately absence of his divinity nor can he just be the ideas of God. The Word, and thus Christ, indicates that divinity. Great point.

Yes, which was with the point made by Daniel Wallace which you said I twisted.

The word does have the same characteristics and qualities of God - righteous, just, honest, loving, kind, merciful, forgiving, gracious, etc. but God's attributes are his alone - omnipotent, omnipresence, omniscience, aseity. Yep, qualitative not identical - NOT God himself. It was a great point huh?

The diminishing of Jesus' nature has already been revealed as a bad teaching. But your challenges to the proper understanding have indeed helped me see how much more solid the evidence is of the Triune God in scripture.

I wish it were different but I have to be happy that your faith in the Triune God more solid.

I can surely say and thank you for making my faith even more clearer in knowing who my God and Father is the only true God and in my risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ------God's anointed human Son, who accomplished all that the Father sent him to do, his endurance of the beatings, the ridicule, being spit upon and suffering death on a cross to being our risen, exalted Lord, the Lord's Messiah a firm anchor for my soul. I praise you Father for your enduring and steadfast love.

 

[mikesw]

The sense of "God" is used two ways????? Where? By whom? I posed a question which should be an easy one for a Trinitarian to answer but I only get accusations of having polytheism concepts thrown back at me!

Either the Word has the same attributes of divinity as his Father or you have to suppose that he is a separate god. I indeed answered it. John shares that Word has those same attributes and consciousness-aspect but he is also distinct from the Father. Nothing I have heard from other guesses about Jesus have maintained these points from John.

which part was "right to a point"? You referenced God the Son so I asked a question which looking at it now, it's not to clear so let me try to word it more plainly: We have God the Son - we have God the Father - who is God the Father's Son? God the Son? If Jesus is God the Son who is his God and Father?

Go back to the previous distinction. The word "theos" is sometimes used solely of the Father. But the word can be used in a broader sense that covers the divine Son who has all the essence of the Father but is a distinct person but not meaning a human person when discussing Jesus' divinity. So God that is his Father is the narrow sense of "god" used in a specific way.

It is like saying I am a man and am born of man. In this case it is a specific man who is my father. Of course John 1 shows a distinction that is unique about God, but that is the basic idea.

As in before he ascended - 'I'm ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your God.' or as in 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'........
Let's pretend, if you can, that this is a legitimate question from a new believer.

The additional point to share here is that Jesus was not speaking of himself as God in clear terms. We know later that Thomas recognized Jesus as God and so does John, in his gospel.

Then why use the term? I gave you accurate terms:

John 3:16, Luke 1:35, Gal. 4:4; Rom. 15:6, 1 John 1:3..............searched for the phrase 'God the Son' -0- I prefer accuracy also.
Yes, Jesus carries both titles Son of Man and Son of God.

you forget what was shared before. In Dan 7:13-14, one appears who is not just a man. He is one who is like as son of man. In Matt 26:64ff, we see the High Priest recognized this as a claim to divinity. That is why he is "like a son of man" instead of just saying he is a son of man. He is the unique Son of God also in John 3:16, but unitarians just say there are lots of sons of God instead of acknowledging the meaning here. And Luke 1:35 again affirms that her pregnancy is initiated not by a man but by the Spirit. It is great that you share these elements of the Triune God. It indeed is hard to avoid that.

I do have John's book but I really don't recall using it for proof text.
\

I've not seen his book on the unitarian heresy but I do see his proof texts used haphazardly in the bride of christ topic. It still was useful to have some passages relating to the synecdoche.

Jesus remained God through death???
Jesus entered his glory after his suffering, death and resurrection. "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. [Luke 24:26,27] the glory promised him after he accomplished the work God gave him to do........

So you are advocating that Jesus stopped being God because the incarnated body ceased to live?
Then in death and resurrection it is true he entered glory in the status among men. He did fulfill the prophecy of his suffering but also of being victorious and being king, just as found in the divine element in Dan 7:13-14. So you do have some of the pieces needed.

Uh. The stupidity of Satan or just his sheer determination to thwart Jesus, as anticipated in Gen 3:15, is what we see here.

Sure. Satan ignorantly thought he could avoid being crushed in the head if he misdirected Jesus. Not sure what you issue is.

Yes, Genesis 3:15 had to be fulfilled and is still being fulfilled.
I have heard some say that 'God never ceases to be God.'
Is that what you mean by - "his divine nature unable to comprehend what is happening with his human nature." Is that saying that even while he was the Son - he was God?

It cannot be fully known or comprehended how this person of the Godhead relates to his human nature. But the events in his humanity do not remain in isolation. We either have to work with this line of thought or deny who Jesus is.

#1 We have the Son who has his own will which can be tempted . . . right?

Wow. you forget things easily. A pretty woman walking by would be a source of temptation. I thought you realized that by now, maybe through experience. It does not mean that Jesus entertained lust. If your forget this detail, then you forget the Hebrews text you shared

#2 yet the Son is still God who has his own will and cannot be tempted...... right?

I share that concept because unitarians are so emphatic that Jesus with two natures could not be God because of temptation.

#3 Is that how Jesus resisted the temptations because he was God and God cannot be tempted?

I doubt that is quite the explanation. He is following his essence in rejecting temptation.

#4 Hebrews 4:15 does not show his temptations to be unusual. . . . For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. . . .

I cannot believe you said that. If he is just a man, then that would just be tautology. It could be a direct statement "Jesus is our high priest that sympathizes with our weaknesses." The unitarians just want to reduce Jesus to a mere super human who they can also become.

#5 bottom line - because he never ceases to be God; he wasn't tempted because God cannot be tempted.

The argument against that evil construction have been made already.

#6 making Hebrews 4:15 a lie because we are not God, therefore he was not 'tempted as we are'

The argument against that failed construction have been made already.

#7 and of course, then he would be without sin because he is God . . . . What a denigration of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Hebrews 1 does not show Jesus as deity.

The argument against that evil construction have been made already.

But where do you get that information?
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true." [John 5:30-32]
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. [1 John 5:9,10]

You must must be hurting after encountering those passages. Just learn who the true Christ is so you can get beyond that misdirection.

Do you have a correct excerpt by Daniel Wallace that shows where any twisting was done?
Yes, which was with the point made by Daniel Wallace which you said I twisted.

Sure you quote his words as if making it an argument against the divinity of the Word. It does not take much thought to realize your errant assumption that Wallace has shared this as the final interpretation of the phrase. Your error is to say that somehow that sentence lets one dismiss the divinity of the Word. I already shared the sense of saying "the Word was God." It means the Word has had all the qualities of God: self-existence, consciousness, his own will, all his power. Wallace just avoids a narrow misconception that any casual reader could make.

The word does have the same characteristics and qualities of God - righteous, just, honest, loving, kind, merciful, forgiving, gracious, etc. but God's attributes are his alone - omnipotent, omnipresence, omniscience, aseity. Yep, qualitative not identical - NOT God himself. It was a great point huh?

If all you had was that one verse you might have a point, but probably not.

I wish it were different but I have to be happy that your faith in the Triune God more solid.

I can surely say and thank you for making my faith even more clearer in knowing who my God and Father is the only true God and in my risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ------God's anointed human Son, who accomplished all that the Father sent him to do, his endurance of the beatings, the ridicule, being spit upon and suffering death on a cross to being our risen, exalted Lord, the Lord's Messiah a firm anchor for my soul. I praise you Father for your enduring and steadfast love.

If I can help a heretic fall away, I guess that is a side-effect of the way I share the truth of Christ. Can lead a horse to water but not make him drink it. But really, the unitarian belief system has too many holes in it

 

[Victoria]

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.

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.

Aiight, 101G Victoria worships a God who surpasses all understanding. Problem is, fallen man thinks he can have God all figured out. Victoria doesn't worship a Schizophrenic God, sorry.

 

[Victoria]

I have no idea what you are referring to when you wrote...

"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?"

There are no orginals. All we have is copies of copies and the problem even on this website is I can quote a verse and someone else here can quote the same verse from a different Bible that says something completely different.

Who said anything about originals, Peterlag? The silly, yet common, argument is to say that b/c they're not the originals, we could never really say God therefore was able to keep His inspired, preserved, inerrant Word throughout all generations. Even copies were made in the Old Testament. Here's two examples:

Moses' Anger: Exodus 32:19
The Two Tablets Replaced: Exodus 34:1-4

Does this mean we can't be certain what the Ten Commandments were? Of course not!

Jeremiah's Scroll Read in the Temple: Chapter 36:1-19
The Scroll Is Burned: Chapter 36:20-26
The Scroll Is Replaced: Chapter 36:27-32

Another thing to consider, the materials used to copy the texts were perishable. They would wear out through constant use.
This is to be expected with any ancient writing.

 

[amazing grace]

Either the Word has the same attributes of divinity as his Father or you have to suppose that he is a separate god. I indeed answered it. John shares that Word has those same attributes and consciousness-aspect but he is also distinct from the Father. Nothing I have heard from other guesses about Jesus have maintained these points from John.

As I said, I believe God's attributes are his own, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and asiety (dependent on no one and nothing). The word does have the same characteristics and/or qualities - love, holiness, mercy, goodness, righteousness, faithfulness, truth, grace, etc. And that word became flesh, embodied as the only Son from the Father . . the Son reflects those same characteristics and qualities. Since Jesus is not God there is no separated God . . . there is God the Father and there is the Son of God, a Father and a Son.

Go back to the previous distinction. The word "theos" is sometimes used solely of the Father. But the word can be used in a broader sense that covers the divine Son who has all the essence of the Father but is a distinct person but not meaning a human person when discussing Jesus' divinity. So God that is his Father is the narrow sense of "god" used in a specific way.

It is like saying I am a man and am born of man. In this case it is a specific man who is my father. Of course John 1 shows a distinction that is unique about God, but that is the basic idea.

True, the word theos can be used in a broader sense as in - Is it not written in your Law, I said, you are gods" [John 10:24]
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods (false gods) [Gal. 4:8]
Then of course, we have the Father to whom Jesus prayed and acknowledged that eternal life was knowing the Father, the only true God.... If Jesus said his Father is the only true God - I believe him. If Jesus says he is the Son of God - I believe him. If Jesus is God, then why is it necessary to go through him (Jesus Christ) to get to God in the first place? Why go to such extreme elaborate story telling if God is the one who was coming to earth to redeem humanity? Why not just simply tell us that?

God is used in reference to the Father 1325 times in the NT.

The additional point to share here is that Jesus was not speaking of himself as God in clear terms. We know later that Thomas recognized Jesus as God and so does John, in his gospel.

Oh how well I know 'Jesus was not speaking of himself as God in clear terms' not even in foggy terms! I know what Thomas said but was he acknowledging Jesus AS the one true God? I have my thoughts on this but they are just that - Thomas is acknowledging his risen Lord and his God who raised Jesus from the dead but that is not set in stone for me - there is more for me to learn here. I know that the term God refers to the Father over 1325 times in the NT so I would be leery of building a doctrine of Jesus is God on only a few references - some of which are doubtful for grammatical reasons.

you forget what was shared before. In Dan 7:13-14, one appears who is not just a man. He is one who is like as son of man. In Matt 26:64ff, we see the High Priest recognized this as a claim to divinity. That is why he is "like a son of man" instead of just saying he is a son of man. He is the unique Son of God also in John 3:16, but unitarians just say there are lots of sons of God instead of acknowledging the meaning here. And Luke 1:35 again affirms that her pregnancy is initiated not by a man but by the Spirit. It is great that you share these elements of the Triune God. It indeed is hard to avoid that.

Daniel 7:13 'one like the Son of man' in Hebrew = ben (son); enes = man, human being
Matt. 26:63,64 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest places Jesus under oath by the living God (To "adjure" is to command or charge someone with an oath, or to put them under a solemn oath with the threat of penalty if they do not comply.) commanding Jesus under oath to answer whether he is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answers in the affirmative and then foretells of his future exaltation and glory. If the high priest thought Jesus was God, why did he put Jesus under oath by the living God to tell the truth?

I've not seen his book on the unitarian heresy but I do see his proof texts used haphazardly in the bride of christ topic. It still was useful to have some passages relating to the synecdoche.

So you are advocating that Jesus stopped being God because the incarnated body ceased to live?
Then in death and resurrection it is true he entered glory in the status among men. He did fulfill the prophecy of his suffering but also of being victorious and being king, just as found in the divine element in Dan 7:13-14. So you do have some of the pieces needed.

There is no divine element in Daniel, the son of man, a human being is presented before the Ancient of Days.
Jesus was never God so how could I be advocating that he stopped being God.
You had said: You state things okay except you miss the divinity of Christ remaining through death and that the Son shared again in the glory he had before his incarnation.
So I asked you: Jesus remained God through death??? But as always my questions are answered with questions . . . . which tend to lead the conversation in totally different direction. . . . and further down the rabbit hole we go!

Sure. Satan ignorantly thought he could avoid being crushed in the head if he misdirected Jesus. Not sure what you issue is.

It cannot be fully known or comprehended how this person of the Godhead relates to his human nature. But the events in his humanity do not remain in isolation. We either have to work with this line of thought or deny who Jesus is.

Or stay in line with who God says he is.....This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.

Wow. you forget things easily. A pretty woman walking by would be a source of temptation. I thought you realized that by now, maybe through experience. It does not mean that Jesus entertained lust. If your forget this detail, then you forget the Hebrews text you shared

I share that concept because unitarians are so emphatic that Jesus with two natures could not be God because of temptation.
I doubt that is quite the explanation. He is following his essence in rejecting temptation.

I ASKED: We have the Son who has his own will which can be tempted....RIGHT? That would require a yes or no answer.
I ASKED: yet the Son is still God who has his own will and cannot be tempted.....RIGHT? That would also require a yes or no answer. Then I ASKED: Is that how Jesus resisted the temptations because he was God and God cannot be tempted? No significant answer.

'God never ceases to be God' remember? While Jesus is 'man' he is still God --- he has the will of man and he has the will of God So, it seems to me the will of God would overpower the will he has as a man; therefore because he doesn't cease being God - he cannot truly be tempted.

I cannot believe you said that. If he is just a man, then that would just be tautology. It could be a direct statement "Jesus is our high priest that sympathizes with our weaknesses." The unitarians just want to reduce Jesus to a mere super human who they can also become.

The miraculous thing is Jesus was a man, an extraordinary man who was chosen from among men to be our high priest and he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every respect as we are. Is God's word true or not?

The argument against that evil construction have been made already.

The argument against that failed construction have been made already.

The argument against that evil construction have been made already.

All my points were valid . . .

You must must be hurting after encountering those passages. Just learn who the true Christ is so you can get beyond that misdirection.

I don't know why I would be hurting . . . I believe in the Son of God and I carry the same testimony of the Son that God has borne concerning his Son.

Sure you quote his words as if making it an argument against the divinity of the Word. It does not take much thought to realize your errant assumption that Wallace has shared this as the final interpretation of the phrase. Your error is to say that somehow that sentence lets one dismiss the divinity of the Word. I already shared the sense of saying "the Word was God." It means the Word has had all the qualities of God: self-existence, consciousness, his own will, all his power. Wallace just avoids a narrow misconception that any casual reader could make.

So you don't have a correct excerpt by Daniel Wallace to prove your point? It has to do with the Colwell Rule and Daniel Wallace is not the only person who has cited it. You would be correct if John 1:1c said 'the Word was THE God' with the definite article before God . . . with the definite article before 'word' - Word is the subject and God is used as an adjective.
Jesus was not asei - self existent nor did he have his own power . . .

If all you had was that one verse you might have a point, but probably not.

If I can help a heretic fall away, I guess that is a side-effect of the way I share the truth of Christ. Can lead a horse to water but not make him drink it. But really, the unitarian belief system has too many holes in it

I disagree with your assessment. But honestly, a lively and sometimes frustrating discussion!

 

[Victoria]

Thanks but I disagree that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd person of the Trinity.

I believe God is THE Holy Spirit (He is Holy and He is Spirit). We receive the gift of holy spirit upon repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38) which is the being baptized with holy spirit = the new birth = being born again of the spirit (John 3).

Yes, we are sealed with the gift of holy spirit. God in Christ lives in us by means of the gift of holy spirit.

I don't want to assume, but am curious. Are you a Universal Unitarian? This position is new to me.
What I see mostly are Universal Unitarian videos