All Claims of The Son's Deity

[amazing grace]

I know the truth hurts but you will get over it. Jesus is God.

The bad thing about it - those same verses that get repeated do not state that Jesus is God. The concept has to be read INTO the scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

That is the problem. Things seem clear to you as you deny the options of the meaning. There indeed is scholarly argument about the verse.
The more broader scripture would say that reconciling the world by Christ as the avenue of reconciling is the focus. This passage is not emphasizing the incarnation of God in Christ, even though your proposal of that might still be worth considering.
The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

I am not denying any meanings. If there were truly scholarly argument about 2 Cor. 5:19 then you would quote it.
Agreed it is no where near emphasizing the incarnation of God, i.e. in the flesh.
Yes, the other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Why bring the Holy Spirit within the Trinity as part of your argument now? You are conflating passages that are not related. But it is okay to recognize that Christ is God such that Col 1:27 can reflect that too.

I'm not conflating passages that are not related. I thought it was self evident that the way in which God and Christ dwell in us is through the Spirit . . . I guess I was wrong. I haven't NEVER recognized Christ as God.

That is great eisegesis again. You are conflating ideas and does not make the point you are trying to force.

Thank you. Let me add this to my so called eisegesis: John 14:20 In that day, you will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you.

Really? You are exalting yourself to know end. that is why your doctrine is harmful.

Criticism with no evidence . . . I see no exalting of myself but if you do, so be it.

 

[Rory Wilson]

The bad thing about it - those same verses that get repeated do not state that Jesus is God. The concept has to be read INTO the scripture.

The Persons of the Trinity are persons in the colloquial sense, and so unambiguous in maintaining that the Deity is a single personality, that there is none of the shifting about from a personal to a non-personal interpretation of the members of the Trinity which makes the reasoning of unitarians for example, so elusive.

 

[mikesw]

I am not denying any meanings. If there were truly scholarly argument about 2 Cor. 5:19 then you would quote it.
Agreed it is no where near emphasizing the incarnation of God, i.e. in the flesh.

Wow. It is not a surprise you neglect that scholars have noted three different sense of the passage. You just make sure you choose one you like with no further support of the concept you like.

Yes, the other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Sure. If you do not know the true God of scripture.

I'm not conflating passages that are not related. I thought it was self evident that the way in which God and Christ dwell in us is through the Spirit . . .

Jesus cannot do that unless he has always been Spirit.

I guess I was wrong. I haven't NEVER recognized Christ as God.

Then you reject God in you.

Thank you. Let me add this to my so called eisegesis: John 14:20 In that day, you will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you.

Jesus is in Christians. It does not then say the Father is in Christians. You put ideas into a blender such that they no longer make sense

Criticism with no evidence . . . I see no exalting of myself but if you do, so be it.

You are blind to your own doctrine then

 

[amazing grace]

The Persons of the Trinity are persons in the colloquial sense, and so unambiguous in maintaining that the Deity is a single personality, that there is none of the shifting about from a personal to a non-personal interpretation of the members of the Trinity which makes the reasoning of unitarians for example, so elusive.

Yo . . . can you speak in the colloquial sense, i.e. language characteristic of everyday language, casual conversation?

 

[Rory Wilson]

I have sustained my desire to confine ‘Incarnation’ to the case of Jesus, as opposed to all other prophets and saints of God, by the usage rapidly becoming current among the more thoughtful Trinitarians.

 

[amazing grace]

Wow. It is not a surprise you neglect that scholars have noted three different sense of the passage. You just make sure you choose one you like with no further support of the concept you like.

Each bible translation has the same basic concept 'God was in Christ' - I even put the phrase in bold script to point it out.

ESV -- that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
KJV -- To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
NASB -- namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
NIV -- that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

So, all in all, where is the scholarly argument? Could you perhaps point it out?

Sure. If you do not know the true God of scripture.

I was agreeing with what you said:

That is the problem. Things seem clear to you as you deny the options of the meaning. There indeed is scholarly argument about the verse.
The more broader scripture would say that reconciling the world by Christ as the avenue of reconciling is the focus. This passage is not emphasizing the incarnation of God in Christ, even though your proposal of that might still be worth considering.
The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant.

Jesus cannot do that unless he has always been Spirit.

HUH????

Then you reject God in you.

I believe that God in Christ dwells in me via being born again of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth.
Nope. I reject the Trinity - that Jesus is God.

Jesus is in Christians. It does not then say the Father is in Christians. You put ideas into a blender such that they no longer make sense

Jesus is in Christians and Christians are in Jesus hence the name Christians (Christ in).
The Father does dwell in us . . . just as John 17 says and John 14:20 says.

You are blind to your own doctrine then

See, that's the problem - Believing that Jesus is God - reading "I and the Father are one" to mean "Jesus is God" - you cannot believe what is plainly written in other parts of scripture. Jesus and his Father are one in purpose and mission - keeping the 'sheep' for the coming Kingdom. We are to be one in purpose and mission with Jesus and his Father - bringing people into the Kingdom, reconciling people to God in Christ's stead (gathering the sheep). The harvest is plenty . . .

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:18-20

Exactly how am I exalting myself to no end?

 

[Runningman]

Do we just have to say you are unqualified to properly interpret scripture?

You have no consistency with your theology and it gives the impression you use a secret decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks to explain everything with.

 

[mikesw]

Each bible translation has the same basic concept 'God was in Christ' - I even put the phrase in bold script to point it out.

ESV -- that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. . . .

Here is a summary of options without some technical language details

(1) “It was God who in Christ was reconciling the world to himself” (Barrett), or “God was near at hand, to reconcile the world to himself in Christ.”109 ...​

(2) “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,” or “God, through Christ, was reconciling the world to Himself.” . . .
(3) “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” or “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”(RSV). Here there is no periphrastic construction, ἐνΧριστῷ is an adverbial predicate, and καταλλάσσωνis temporally undefined, being less verbal than adjectival in import(almost = “as a reconciler”).

Nothing in the immediate context, it would appear,demands that any of the renderings under (2) and (3) be excluded as inappropriate, and each embodies a typically Pauline sentiment, thatis, either that it was in or through Christ that God effected reconciliation (Rom. 5:10–11; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:19–20, 22) or that God was present in Christ (e.g., Col. 1:19; 2:9) and reconciled humans or the universe (e.g., Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20). Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 440–441​

It becomes evident that scholarship does not seem to be important to unitarians.

I was agreeing with what you said:

If you were agreeing with me then you know God does not need to be again in Christ since Christ is of the Godhead.

HUH????

You somehow expect Christ, as a mere man, to be inside you. I'm saying he must be Spirit so, just as God is Spirit, they can be inside you. Your confusion is why deeper doctrines so often go beyond the general person's ability to sort out the ideas.

I believe that God in Christ dwells in me via being born again of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth.
Nope. I reject the Trinity - that Jesus is God.

Yes. You have shared your disbelief.

Jesus is in Christians and Christians are in Jesus hence the name Christians (Christ in).
The Father does dwell in us . . . just as John 17 says and John 14:20 says.

"Christian" is not a technical theological term in the sense you portray. Then we already have seen yours and runningman's abuse of those passages. Repetition of that abuse fails to make a convincing argument

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:18-20

Exactly how am I exalting myself to no end?

You deny the divinity of Christ and exalt yourself to his level. You make yourself out to be God.

 

[mikesw]

You have no consistency with your theology and it gives the impression you use a secret decoder ring from a box of Cracker Jacks to explain everything with.

To the ignorance of unitarianism, the truth about God does not make sense.

 

[Runningman]

To the ignorance of unitarianism, the truth about God does not make sense.

Because you are in a spiritual prison and can't see your way out even when the Bible explicitly tells you who God is. You won't get out until you want out. So far, I believe you are quite at home with your captors.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[amazing grace]

Here is a summary of options without some technical language details

It becomes evident that scholarship does not seem to be important to unitarians.

I knew you had a reference somewhere!!
God was in Christ or God through Christ . . . and in each bible version

. . . Nothing in the immediate context, it would appear,demands that any of the renderings under (2) and (3) be excluded as inappropriate, and each embodies a typically Pauline sentiment, thatis, either that it was in or through Christ that God effected reconciliation . . .​

If you were agreeing with me then you know God does not need to be again in Christ since Christ is of the Godhead.

I agreed with the ONE statement you said "The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant."

You somehow expect Christ, as a mere man, to be inside you. I'm saying he must be Spirit so, just as God is Spirit, they can be inside you. Your confusion is why deeper doctrines so often go beyond the general person's ability to sort out the ideas.

Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

Yes. You have shared your disbelief.

"Christian" is not a technical theological term in the sense you portray. Then we already have seen yours and runningman's abuse of those passages. Repetition of that abuse fails to make a convincing argument

hmmm --- I didn't realize that "Christ in" was such a technical theological term. Christian is a follower of Christ - is that better?

You deny the divinity of Christ and exalt yourself to his level. You make yourself out to be God.

If you are going to accuse me of something then have the decency to tell me HOW have I exalted myself to the level of Christ or made myself out to be God!!
How in the world have I made myself out to be

 

[Grace ambassador]

Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

Precious friend, If The LORD Jesus Christ Is Not The Omnipresent Almighty God, then he "is in no one",
Correct?:

But, In Biblical ( Over 500 Plain and Clear Passages Of ) Fact, He Is In Every Grace believer!

Amen.

 

[civic]

Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

Thats impossible if Christ is only a man- a man cannot dwell in another man, only God can do such a thing.

 

[mikesw]

I knew you had a reference somewhere!!
God was in Christ or God through Christ . . . and in each bible version

. . . Nothing in the immediate context, it would appear,demands that any of the renderings under (2) and (3) be excluded as inappropriate, and each embodies a typically Pauline sentiment, thatis, either that it was in or through Christ that God effected reconciliation . . .​

That does not support the denial of the divinity of Christ, as you seem to presume with your response. It speaks of the individual act that Christ as both human and divine did in reconciling the world.

I agreed with the ONE statement you said "The other alternative of God being in God would be redundant."

Again, Christ is God. That tends to disqualify your idea that God needs again to be in his Son distinctly.

Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

He only is that by being divine, not human. duh

hmmm --- I didn't realize that "Christ in" was such a technical theological term. Christian is a follower of Christ - is that better?

I don't know. just chalk it up to another insignificant statement of yours

If you are going to accuse me of something then have the decency to tell me HOW have I exalted myself to the level of Christ or made myself out to be God!!
How in the world have I made myself out to be

that is what unitarians do. they diminish who Christ is and say they can be just like him. But you would actually have to be divine in the Godhead to do that.

 

[amazing grace]

Precious friend, If The LORD Jesus Christ Is Not The Omnipresent Almighty God, then he "is in no one",
Correct?:

But, In Biblical ( Over 500 Plain and Clear Passages Of ) Fact, He Is!

Amen.

Incorrect. Scripture doesn't reference Jesus as Almighty God.
It seems there are approximately 31,102 verses in the KJV - 23,144 in the OT and 7,938 in the NT. Although I don't agree that there are '500 Plain and Clear Passages' - if there were that's not very good odds.

 

[amazing grace]

Thats impossible if Christ is only a man- a man cannot dwell in another man, only God can do such a thing.

What did I just say - Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a spiritual body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a ife-giving spirit. [1 Cor. 15:44,45]

 

[amazing grace]

That does not support the denial of the divinity of Christ, as you seem to presume with your response. It speaks of the individual act that Christ as both human and divine did in reconciling the world.

It doesn't support the divinity of Christ aka the Deity of Christ, aka that Christ was God.
It does support the fact that God was reconciling the world to himself in and/or through Christ.
And enough of that . . .,.

Again, Christ is God. That tends to disqualify your idea that God needs again to be in his Son distinctly.

If you say so.

He only is that by being divine, not human. duh

I don't know. just chalk it up to another insignificant statement of yours

that is what unitarians do. they diminish who Christ is and say they can be just like him. But you would actually have to be divine in the Godhead to do that.

Why is it that no one wants to be true to what the majority of scriptures say concerning Jesus Christ and just acknowledge the tremendous selfless thing Jesus did for us, he NEVER sinned - it took effort.
He always submitted his will to that of His Father - it took effort.
He had to suffer to the point of death on a cross, praying earnestly for God to remove this 'cup' from him and an angel came from heaven to strengthen him for the task ahead - it took effort!
There are no sufficient words to praise our Lord and Savior for what he, being a human being, did for us.
Imagine this from a truly human man's point of view:

And when he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will but yours be done. And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, to strengthen him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. . . .

IT TOOK GREAT EFFORT. (Post #33 from thread If . . then . .)

Making Jesus God diminishes who Christ is ---- it diminishes his obedience, his sufferings, and his death.

We are like Christ in that we are human beings as he was but we are not JUST LIKE HIM in sinless perfection.
We will never measure up to the stature of the man Jesus Christ was but he's not ashamed to call us brothers.

 

[civic]

What did I just say - Yep, I expect Christ as the life-giving spirit he is ---- to be inside me.

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a spiritual body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a ife-giving spirit. [1 Cor. 15:44,45]

So you deny His Resurrection, good to know

 

[Runningman]

So you deny His Resurrection, good to know

You're getting closer I see. You're now calling it "his resurrection." Rather than him resurrecting himself, you now seem to acknowledge, based on the wording you chose, that you have awareness that Jesus received a resurrection, rather than having performed one on himself, post mortem.