Jesus denied being God

[Runningman]

I see that your reading comprehension is not so good. I may have written it that way early on but then realized that would really confuse the unitarian and open up opportunities to respond the way you just did. However, you would have to only read old posts to justify your present error.

I speak of the preexistent One that became incarnate as Jesus. That is the more precise way of speaking of John 1 and the other passages about preexistence. Maybe now that you know that John 1 speaks in this fashion you may be able to start comprehending who Jesus is.

Of course the answer to who preexists, the answer is the One known in addition to the Father within the Godhead. Duhh.

Your story doesn't make any sense. With consistency, God is referred to as a singular person He, Him, His, Me, You, and I throughout the entire Old Testament, meaning God is one person, we know from the Scripture that the one person who is God is known as YHWH the Father. Jesus without the Father is a singular person as well, but when Jesus is with they Father that becomes a we or them, meaning Jesus and God together is more than one person. Jesus without God is one person.

John 14
23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.

What is your workaround for God being a singular person without Jesus?

 

[mikesw]

Your story doesn't make any sense. With consistency, God is referred to as a singular person He, Him, His, Me, You, and I throughout the entire Old Testament, meaning God is one person, we know from the Scripture that the one person who is God is known as YHWH the Father. Jesus without the Father is a singular person as well, but when Jesus is with they Father that becomes a we or them, meaning Jesus and God together is more than one person. Jesus without God is one person.

John 14
23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.

What is your workaround for God being a singular person without Jesus?

Duhh. To the carnal mind, the incarnation of Jesus does not make sense.

 

[Runningman]

Duhh. To the carnal mind, the incarnation of Jesus does not make sense.

It's scripturally inconsistent.

 

[mikesw]

It's scripturally inconsistent.

to the carnal minded it is indeed seemingly inconsistent. after all evidence in scripture is overlooked about the deity of Christ,, the only other passages are the few that do not highlight the preexisting one who became incarnate.

 

[Runningman]

to the carnal minded it is indeed seemingly inconsistent. after all evidence in scripture is overlooked about the deity of Christ,, the only other passages are the few that do not highlight the preexisting one who became incarnate.

You got it backwards. The Bible has the writings from people with spiritual minds, but your writings are not what they talked about, meaning you are the the one with a carnal mind here. The Bible never talks about an incarnation or a trinity.

 

[mikesw]

You got it backwards. The Bible has the writings from people with spiritual minds, but your writings are not what they talked about, meaning you are the the one with a carnal mind here. The Bible never talks about an incarnation or a trinity.

i keep telling you that you do not have to go into the trinity issue. All you have to do is show how you deny the deity of Christ with some convincing argument. You also admitted that no word existed for incarnation because it was not a concept before the preexistent Word became flesh as Christ. You might remember how you argued that and how we saw that your argument was just affirming the need for the word "incarnation."

 

[Runningman]

i keep telling you that you do not have to go into the trinity issue. All you have to do is show how you deny the deity of Christ with some convincing argument. You also admitted that no word existed for incarnation because it was not a concept before the preexistent Word became flesh as Christ. You might remember how you argued that and how we saw that your argument was just affirming the need for the word "incarnation."

Incarnation wasn't a concept after Jesus was born either. They literally had no words to describe it, any precedent to expect it, prophecies, or descriptions of God saying that is what was going to happen. Jesus was literally created, they said these things explicitly and you can't accept it.

 

[mikesw]

Incarnation wasn't a concept after Jesus was born either. They literally had no words to describe it, any precedent to expect it, prophecies, or descriptions of God saying that is what was going to happen. Jesus was literally created, they said these things explicitly and you can't accept it.

Duhh. You shared that before about not being a concept before Christ. It is unique to Christ. Now you have to say that God created another god. That gets you in worse position.

 

[Runningman]

Duhh. You shared that before about not being a concept before Christ. It is unique to Christ. Now you have to say that God created another god. That gets you in worse position.

"The Word was made flesh" means the Word is flesh and we know flesh is created matter. The struggle you are up against is actually Scripture, it isn't me who is telling you something the Bible doesn't say. If you want to say I am in a "worse position" for simply showing you about Jesus is created then what I understand is your problem is ultimately with the Bible and your vain efforts to try to align your non-Biblical beliefs with what the Bible says. Since you cannot change the written word, you import your beliefs and and try to persuade others that the Bible says something that it actually does not say. This ultimately boils down to you being a deceiver.

 

[Peterlag]

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

Basically, that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

The following are mostly the verses they use and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture. In contrast, the clear verses where Jesus is said to be a “man” such as when Peter or Paul taught their audiences that Jesus was a man appointed by God are not disputed and in the context there does not seem to be any good reason those men would not have said Jesus was a God-man if in fact that is what he is.

1.) Isaiah 9:6
2.) Matthew 28:18
3.) John 1:1
4.) John 1:3
5.) John 1:14
6.) John 6:38
7.) John 8:58
8.) John 10:30
9.) John 10:33
10.) John 14:19
11.) John 20:28
12.) Philippians 2:6
13.) Colossians 1:16
14.) 1 Timothy 3:16
15.) Hebrews 1:8
16.) 1 John 5:7
17.) Revelation 1:8

 

[JesusFan]

It's scripturally inconsistent.

If one holds to God able to create entire Universe out from Nothing, he becoming human flesh is possible, as ALL things are possible to God

 

[JesusFan]

"The Word was made flesh" means the Word is flesh and we know flesh is created matter. The struggle you are up against is actually Scripture, it isn't me who is telling you something the Bible doesn't say. If you want to say I am in a "worse position" for simply showing you about Jesus is created then what I understand is your problem is ultimately with the Bible and your vain efforts to try to align your non-Biblical beliefs with what the Bible says. Since you cannot change the written word, you import your beliefs and and try to persuade others that the Bible says something that it actually does not say. This ultimately boils down to you being a deceiver.

Jesus of Nazareth was created in the womb of mary, as his humanity existed only from that time forward, but his deity eternally existed in heaven before his birth

 

[mikesw]

"The Word was made flesh" means the Word is flesh and we know flesh is created matter. The struggle you are up against is actually Scripture, it isn't me who is telling you something the Bible doesn't say.

Now you say an inanimate object, under your type of explanations, takes on flesh. That is ridiculous and whitewashes over everything John 1 shares.

If you want to say I am in a "worse position" for simply showing you about Jesus is created then what I understand is your problem is ultimately with the Bible and your vain efforts to try to align your non-Biblical beliefs with what the Bible says.

You are sharing a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation and saying that the proper interpretation is non-Biblical. All you have to do is provide a sufficient argument to deny the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. But you have not accomplished that.

Since you cannot change the written word, you import your beliefs and and try to persuade others that the Bible says something that it actually does not say. This ultimately boils down to you being a deceiver.

If I am called a deceiver for promoting what God has done, that is the burden you bear.

 

[Runningman]

Now you say an inanimate object, under your type of explanations, takes on flesh. That is ridiculous and whitewashes over everything John 1 shares.


You are sharing a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation and saying that the proper interpretation is non-Biblical. All you have to do is provide a sufficient argument to deny the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ. But you have not accomplished that.

If I am called a deceiver for promoting what God has done, that is the burden you bear.

What I am providing you is Christianity and it pre-dates your "novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation" that was developed in the 4th century at various councils.

"All things were made" - John 1:3
"The Word was made flesh" - John 1:14

If "the Word was made flesh" means Jesus incarnated, then when "all things were made" then everything else was incarnated too. You cannot defend your doctrine with Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

What I am providing you is Christianity and it pre-dates your "novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation" that was developed in the 4th century at various councils.

"All things were made" - John 1:3
"The Word was made flesh" - John 1:14

If "the Word was made flesh" means Jesus incarnated, then when "all things were made" then everything else was incarnated too. You cannot defend your doctrine with Scripture.

It would help if you learned history.

Also you claim that all things were made through a non-existent "word"

The problem of the hyperliteralist unitarian reading is that of reducing words to single universal sense. So the preexisting One being made flesh is reduced to what happens to all people born. You assume that no wording could exist to show that the preexisting One could then become incarnate. You are trying to play with a loaded deck that makes the incarnation impossible since no words exist that could convey that idea. That argument falls flat on its face since John 1 achieves what you deny can be expressed about the incarnation of the Word.

 

[Runningman]

It would help if you learned history.

Also you claim that all things were made through a non-existent "word"

The problem of the hyperliteralist unitarian reading is that of reducing words to single universal sense. So the preexisting One being made flesh is reduced to what happens to all people born. You assume that no wording could exist to show that the preexisting One could then become incarnate. You are trying to play with a loaded deck that makes the incarnation impossible since no words exist that could convey that idea. That argument falls flat on its face since John 1 achieves what you deny can be expressed about the incarnation of the Word.

Show where Jesus as the "pre-existing One" is pre-existing and doing anything. This is required for proper exegesis.

 

[mikesw]

Show where Jesus as the "pre-existing One" is pre-existing and doing anything. This is required for proper exegesis.

uh. That one created all things. I guess you missed John 1:1-3. That is bad exegesis on your part. Or maybe you do not think creation is real.

 

[Runningman]

uh. That one created all things. I guess you missed John 1:1-3. That is bad exegesis on your part. Or maybe you do not think creation is real.

An older manuscript than John called the Old Testament makes no mention of that. Actually, no one else in the entire Bible mentioned that. You would have to ignore everything else the Bible says to come to such a fringe conclusion as if a single verse overrides everything else. John 1:1 has absolutely nothing to do with the pre-existence of Jesus.

 

[synergy]

An older manuscript than John called the Old Testament makes no mention of that. Actually, no one else in the entire Bible mentioned that. You would have to ignore everything else the Bible says to come to such a fringe conclusion as if a single verse overrides everything else. John 1:1 has absolutely nothing to do with the pre-existence of Jesus.

Crack open your Old Testament and you will see that it does speak of a seperate distinct individual acting personally in creation (Prov 8:22–31; Isa 48:16). Also, the OT explicitly promises that YHWH Himself will come to dwell with His people (Exod 25:8; Isa 7:14; 9:6; 40:3). So John 1:1–14 is not a fringe innovation at all, as you're heretically claiming. Scripture regularly clarifies later what was previously implicit, and John explicitly roots the Word before creation (“in the beginning”) and identifies Him as both with God (personal distinction) and was God (shared essence), which directly entails pre-existence.

 

[Runningman]

Crack open your Old Testament and you will see that it does speak of a seperate distinct individual acting personally in creation (Prov 8:22–31; Isa 48:16). Also, the OT explicitly promises that YHWH Himself will come to dwell with His people (Exod 25:8; Isa 7:14; 9:6; 40:3). So John 1:1–14 is not a fringe innovation at all, as you're heretically claiming. Scripture regularly clarifies later what was previously implicit, and John explicitly roots the Word before creation (“in the beginning”) and identifies Him as both with God (personal distinction) and was God (shared essence), which directly entails pre-existence.

It seems your strategy is to now make claims and decorate them with Bible verses that state nothing in regards to your claim. Probably because you hope to bolster your credibility, but it only works if you are speaking to people who have not actually read the Bible or have bothered to look up your heretical pagan teachings.

The Old Testament states explicitly that God created alone, not as John 1:1-3 says where there is a God with a God creating through another God. Your fringe teachings are found nowhere else in the Bible. You have been rebuked.

Isaiah 44
24Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by Myself spread out the earth,