The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth

[Peterlag]

You said, "So, if someone wants to know who is God according to Paul, we can confidently answer: God is the Father of Jesus... our Father."

So you will just ignore who God is according to Paul, outside of the book of Romans?

1 Tim. 6:14-15 " ... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time - He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, ..."

If there's any doubt who the King of kings and Lord of lords is, Revelation 17:14 makes it quite clear: " ... and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings."

Before I go on to other words of Paul, maybe you could show us from these verses how Jesus is not God?

What's the problem? Jesus is the Lord (probably to the Christians) and the King (probably to the Jews) and none of that says he's God.

 

[synergy]

What's the problem? Jesus is the Lord (probably to the Christians) and the King (probably to the Jews) and none of that says he's God.

Jesus shall be called "Immanuel" because He is "God with us". See Matt 1:22-23. What's your excuse for not believing these verses?

22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

 

[mikesw]

This sounds reasonable... but then... why would Paul not address the issue of the deity of Christ across all the epistle to Romans, is this is so central to Christian faith and, according to some, so essential for salvation? In the epistle of Romans Paul speaks a lot about justification, salvation, faith in Christ, etc. So, why would Paul skip such a fundamental doctrine?

Perhaps because he did address the issue in other epistles?
If such is the case, we will find sentences that are very different to the 20 ones written in Romans, right?
Of course, if that's the case, we would still need to reconcile why Paul seems to have a totally different point of view in Romans.
But we can explore and see what we find.

So, why don't you take a ride with me through the rest of the epistles?

your vehicle is going the wrong way so such a ride would not be worthwhile. It is similar for asking an atheist to show my how scripture speaks against the existence of God. You have a vested interest in denying the divinity of Christ since you want to demote Christ to being just a mere manifestation of many manifestations. Why don't you just give me a car where the wheels have been removed and then tell me to take it for spin?

 

[mikesw]

These verses show something more:
1) That Jesus is different from God. They are treated as separate persons. So, Jesus can’t be God.
2) That the exalted Jesus has his God. So, Jesus can’t be God

Do you agree with the two statements above? If not, I beg you to explain.


But the Trinity does not say that God is distinct from Jesus, which is what Paul shows repeatedly.
It says that the Father is distinct and separate, and that the Holy Spirit is distinct and separate.

Sure. We can start with Timothy tomorrow.
Good night, my friends.

uh. you may have noticed that the scriptures you use were also available when people agreed that the Trinitarian concept was the best explanation of what we see in scriptures about the divinity of Christ and the Spirit of God. You need not pick the low hanging fruit. You need to write a book to address the meaning of the passages that you are denying are speaking of the divinity of Christ. It is stupid for anyone here to accept your weak attempt to destroy the awareness of Christ's divinity.

 

[mikesw]

Just read John 1:1 without your presuppositions clouding your vision.

They are distinct Persons. Not distinct Gods. We are not Polytheists.

See? The Frijoles guy does not even know what he is challenging.

 

[dwight92070]

What's the problem? Jesus is the Lord (probably to the Christians) and the King (probably to the Jews) and none of that says he's God.

You're willfully blind. The only Sovereign is God. We all know that. But here Paul says that Jesus is the only Sovereign. You refuse to acknowlege the truth, even when it's right in front of your face.

 

[dwight92070]

These verses show something more:
1) That Jesus is different from God. They are treated as separate persons. So, Jesus can’t be God.
2) That the exalted Jesus has his God. So, Jesus can’t be God

Do you agree with the two statements above? If not, I beg you to explain.


But the Trinity does not say that God is distinct from Jesus, which is what Paul shows repeatedly.
It says that the Father is distinct and separate, and that the Holy Spirit is distinct and separate.

Sure. We can start with Timothy tomorrow.
Good night, my friends.

No, I do not agree with your two statements. They are distinct, but they are not different. Jesus is God in the flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Jesus said that all men should honor Him even as they honor the Father. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." He said, "If you've seen ME, you've seen the Father. You make a distinction between God and the Father, but they are one and the same. Jesus even said that:
"It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say, 'He is your God.' " John 8:54
You guys don't want to believe the scripture that's right in front of you.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ..." Obviously now we're speaking of Jesus.
He was Eternal, He was in the beginning, and He was with God, (distinct, separate) and He was God (He is God)
Before He came to the earth, He was the Word.

In Hebrews, God Himself calls Jesus God, so I guess He should know, and if God calls Jesus God, then I guess we can too. But we believe He truly is God.

Nobody said that the Trinity makes total sense, but many believe it is true, as I do.
You're trying to put all the pieces together, given the scriptural data, but humanly speaking, they don't fit.

 

[Peterlag]

You're willfully blind. The only Sovereign is God. We all know that. But here Paul says that Jesus is the only Sovereign. You refuse to acknowlege the truth, even when it's right in front of your face.

How am I blind? What part of the following do I not see? Again, like I said before you guys have no teaching on the trinity. Only bits and pieces that you twist and take out of context to see in a different light.

Jesus is the king who has supreme power and authority over his church. He was given that when God raised him from the dead.

Part of Matthew 28:18 says...

All power [delegated authority, implies the ability to make power felt. E.W. Bullinger] is given unto Christ in heaven and in earth.

Acts 2:36
...that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[dwight92070]

Pancho Frijoles,
So I responded to you in #254 with 1 Tim. 6:14-16, but I haven't seen your response, so I'm waiting.
I agree, let's continue in Timothy and move through all of the epistles.
Regarding the above passage:

Verses 15-16, among other things say, "... He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, ..."

We know that Jesus is the "Lord of lords and King of kings", mentioned in Rev. 17:14, where He is also called the Lamb - and also in Revelation19:16, where the rider on the white horse has a name "The Word of God" (verse 13). He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written "King of kings, and Lord of lords." This is unmistakably Jesus.

But we also know that God or the Father is the only Sovereign:
Psalm 103:19 "The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His Sovereignty rules over all."
Psalm 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."

Whoever is the King of kings and the Lord of lords is also the blessed and ONLY Sovereign according to verse 15 in the above passage.

So we have Jesus as the ONLY Sovereign and God or the Father as the ONLY Sovereign.

How do we reconcile these? I think the answer is obvious - Jesus is God.

What do you say, Pancho?

 

[dwight92070]

I have read much of Paul's writings.
I have noticed he repeatedly separates God from Jesus Christ.
I'm not talking about 3 verses. I'm not talking about 6. I'm not talking about 12. When I say "repeatedly", I mean it

For example, just in the letter to Romans... just in that single letter, I can show you 24 instances.
By the way, in one of those instances, Paul also calls Jesus "a man", just as he did talking to the people of Athens, as @Peterlag has quoted.

Actually, I have noticed how Paul uses "God" and "Jesus" or "Christ" or "His Son" interchangeably.

For example, in Romans 1:1, Paul speaks of being set apart for the gospel of God. Again, in 1 Timothy 1:11, he says, "according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, ...". In Romans 15:16, Paul says, "ministering as a priest the gospel of God.

But then in Romans 1:9 Paul says "For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son". Also in Romans 15:19, he says, "I have fully preached the gospel of Christ." In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, he says, "... those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

So whose gospel is it? The gospel of God or the gospel of Jesus? Actually it's BOTH, which again leads me to see that Paul uses "God" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

By the way, there are several ways that Paul and the New Testament as a whole, refers to the gospel:

1. The gospel of Jesus (and of our Lord Jesus) (and of Jesus Christ)
2. The gospel of the kingdom
3. The gospel of the grace of God Acts 20:24; In verse 25, Paul says that he "went about preaching the kingdom, ..."
4. The gospel of your salvation
5. The gospel of peace
6. The gospel of God (and the glorious gospel of the blessed God)
7. The eternal gospel

All of these are THE SAME gospel. There never were 2 or more gospels, nor will there be.

This truth is one more reason why I believe Jesus is God.

Imagine that I, Dwight, am Donald Trump's campaign manager. I travel to many places and I spread the good news of Donald Trump. Would I also spread the "good news" of Dwight? Of course not, I am not Donald Trump, I am NOT the good news. Donald Trump must be the sole message of the good news that I am proclaiming, not me.
If Jesus was only a prophet sent by God, His sole message must be about God, not Himself. But guess what? Jesus Christ is just as much good news as God is. The good news of God IS the good news of Jesus. Why? Because Jesus IS God.

Also, in referring to the gospel of the kingdom, whose kingdom are we speaking of? The kingdom of God? The kingdom of Jesus? Yes, again the answer is BOTH. Why? Because the Kingdom of Jesus IS the Kingdom of God. Jesus spoke of His kingdom in John 18:36-37. He told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this realm. Jesus IS God.

Crickets??

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Actually, I have noticed how Paul uses "God" and "Jesus" or "Christ" or "His Son" interchangeably.

For example, in Romans 1:1, Paul speaks of being set apart for the gospel of God. Again, in 1 Timothy 1:11, he says, "according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, ...". In Romans 15:16, Paul says, "ministering as a priest the gospel of God.

But then in Romans 1:9 Paul says "For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son". Also in Romans 15:19, he says, "I have fully preached the gospel of Christ." In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, he says, "... those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

So whose gospel is it? The gospel of God or the gospel of Jesus? Actually it's BOTH, which again leads me to see that Paul uses "God" and "Jesus" interchangeably.

Hi, dwight

I gave myself a break from the Forum this weekend. I hope you had a good and relaxing time as well.

In regards to your examples, we all know God does a lot of things through Jesus Christ, and through us.
The Gospel of God is the same Gospel of Jesus Christ and the same Gospel of Paul and the same Gospel thousands have preached.

That's why, in this conversation, I present those verses in which Paul presents God and Jesus Christ, or the Father and Jesus Christ within the same verse or sentence. It is on those verses where Paul has the perfect opportunity to let us know whether they are one being or not.

Let me give you an example:

You may remember I am Mexican and live in Mexico. Ken Salazar is the name of the ambassador of the US in my country.
Suppose I am interchangeably saying that Joe Biden or Ken Salazar (see photo below), accepted X, promoted Y, or condemned Z.
Suppose that some people start thinking, based on the way I interchangeably use "Joe Biden" and "Ken Salazar", they are in fact the very same person.
Then I have the opportunity to present within the same sentence both individuals. I take the opportunity to give the title "President of the US" to only one of them. Imagine I write the following sentence:

"We thank the presence and friendship of The President of the United States and his Ambassador in our country".

Wouldn't that dispel any doubt that Joe Biden and Ken Salazar are in fact two distinct individuals and that only one of the two is the President?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Imagine that I, Dwight, am Donald Trump's campaign manager. I travel to many places and I spread the good news of Donald Trump. Would I also spread the "good news" of Dwight? Of course not, I am not Donald Trump, I am NOT the good news. Donald Trump must be the sole message of the good news that I am proclaiming, not me.

I invite you to think in Moses.
Why is the "Law of Moses" called that way? Was it Moses or was it God who gave that Law?
If it was God... could we say that Moses was God?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Pancho Frijoles,
So I responded to you in #254 with 1 Tim. 6:14-16, but I haven't seen your response, so I'm waiting.
I agree, let's continue in Timothy and move through all of the epistles.
Regarding the above passage:

Verses 15-16, among other things say, "... He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, ..."

We know that Jesus is the "Lord of lords and King of kings", mentioned in Rev. 17:14, where He is also called the Lamb - and also in Revelation19:16, where the rider on the white horse has a name "The Word of God" (verse 13). He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written "King of kings, and Lord of lords." This is unmistakably Jesus.

Hi Dwight

Thanks for your interest in going through the rest of the epistles.
I'll come to the passage in 1 Tim 6:14-16.
Let's first, though, see how Paul let us know from the very begining of his letter that he believes God and Jesus as two distinct beings, and that only one of those two beings (The Father) receives the title of God.

1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the command of God our Savior, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,
1 Tim 1:2 To Timothy, my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then, please consider this explicit statement
1 Tim 2: 5 There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

In this verse we learn that

1. Christ cannot be God because Christ is a mediator between God and men. God can't be a mediator with Himself. The judge cannot be a mediator between you and the judge himself. Can he? That's why an advocate is necessary, and Jesus is also called an Advocate.
2. In the same sentence in which God is mentioned, Christ is given the title of "Man". This is not the first time Paul or the apostles refer to Jesus as Man. We find it as well in Acts 2:22 and Romans 5:15

Finally, Paul mentions three kinds of witnesses before whom he orders the brethren to follow his advice. These witnesses are: 1) God, 2) Jesus Christ and 3) the elect angels. These all are all distinct persons, and only One (not Jesus) is called God.

1 Tim 5: 21 I command you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

***

Now, let's come to the analysis of the passage you have quoted, 1 Tim 6:13-16

I command you, in the sight of God, who gives life to all things, and in the sight of Christ Jesus, who testified a good confession before Pontius Pilate, to keep this commandment without blemish, blameless until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He, who is the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the proper time. He alone has immortality, living in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen, nor can see. To Him be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

This "He", that I have highlighted in red, is God, not Jesus Christ. Why do I say that?

1. REASON 1. Because Paul says that God will reveal Jesus "at proper time". Do we both agree that Jesus Himself explained that He didn't know the time of his return, only the Father? Well, this is why The Father, who is the Only and True God, will reveal his Son "at proper time". Peter also explained that God would be the one who would send Christ a second time (Acts 3:19-21).
2. REASON 2. Because God is the One who no men has seen or can see. Many people, in contrast, saw Christ. Paul himself says that God is "invisible" while Jesus is the "visible image" of that invisible God. (Colossians 1:15).

In the Book of Revelation Christ fights in the name of His God, His Father. He fights from the Kingdom of His Father, the Kingdom of God. That's why he bears the name of "King of Kings". It is like if he were waving a flag as He rides the horse, the flag of God.
Remember that in the Book of Revelation, Jesus repeats four times that He has His God. So He can't be God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In conclusion, in the five verses of the First Epistle to Timothy in which Paul mentions God and Jesus in the same sentence, Paul continues to make the same distinction he made in the 20 verses we reviewed in Romans. So, we now have 25 verses altogether that indicate what Paul thought about the subject.

*****

The Second Epistle to Timothy follows the same salutation pattern of the First Epistle, and gives The Father (but not Christ Jesus) the title of "God".
2 Tim 1:2 Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

In this other instance, Paul again consider God and Jesus as separate witness of his recommendation.
2 Tim 4.1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:

So, we have now come to 27 verses in which Paul has a fantastic opportunity to declare Jesus Christ as God, but does the opposite: separates God from Jesus... and in some of them, specifies that such God is the Father of Jesus.

 

[dwight92070]

Hi, dwight

I gave myself a break from the Forum this weekend. I hope you had a good and relaxing time as well.

In regards to your examples, we all know God does a lot of things through Jesus Christ, and through us.

[Dwight - God does a lot of things through Jesus Christ? I think that is a very misleading statement. God does EVERYTHING through Jesus Christ!
"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
God does NOTHING through us unless we are ABIDING IN CHRIST.
"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
So I think it is obvious right from the start, that I have a much higher view of Jesus than you do. I think Jesus is God - and the Word WAS God - but you reject that truth. I do not.]


The Gospel of God is the same Gospel of Jesus Christ and the same Gospel of Paul and the same Gospel thousands have preached.

[Dwight - Another misleading statement. Yes, Paul does once or twice (maybe more) call it "my gospel", as we all can, because we claim that that gospel is the one that we follow. But "gospel" means "good news". There is no such thing as the Gospel of (or about) Paul - or the good news of (or about) Paul - anymore than there is the "gospel of Dwight" or the "gospel of Pancho".
It's NOT the good news about Dwight or the good news about Pancho. Neither you nor I nor Paul have any good news about ourselves that can bring salvation to anyone. It IS the good news about Jesus Christ! It IS the good news about God! The gospel of Jesus Christ IS about Jesus - His eternal life, His teachings, His works, His word. The gospel of God is about God - His eternal life, His teachings, His works, His word. And since the eternal life, teachings, works, and words of Jesus are identical with the eternal life, teachings, works, and words of God, it is clear that Jesus IS God. But you reject that truth. I do not.]



That's why, in this conversation, I present those verses in which Paul presents God and Jesus Christ, or the Father and Jesus Christ within the same verse or sentence. It is on those verses where Paul has the perfect opportunity to let us know whether they are one being or not.

[Dwight -Just because you think Paul had a "perfect opportunity", in some verses, to tell us that Jesus is God, but, you say, he didn't - is irrelevant. Especially since he DID clearly tell us several times, in several verses, that Jesus IS God.]

Let me give you an example:

You may remember I am Mexican and live in Mexico. Ken Salazar is the name of the ambassador of the US in my country.
Suppose I am interchangeably saying that Joe Biden or Ken Salazar (see photo below), accepted X, promoted Y, or condemned Z.
Suppose that some people start thinking, based on the way I interchangeably use "Joe Biden" and "Ken Salazar", they are in fact the very same person.
Then I have the opportunity to present within the same sentence both individuals. I take the opportunity to give the title "President of the US" to only one of them. Imagine I write the following sentence:

"We thank the presence and friendship of The President of the United States and his Ambassador in our country".

Wouldn't that dispel any doubt that Joe Biden and Ken Salazar are in fact two distinct individuals and that only one of the two is the President?

[Dwight - I understand your point. But the very fact that Paul and other New Testament authors seem to show little or no concern, when they use "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably, shows that this is much more than a President/Ambassador relationship. Jesus was NOT an ambassador FOR God - He WAS God in the flesh. By way of contrast, "WE ARE ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Cor.5:18-20 A close look at these verses will tell you that - to be reconciled to Christ IS to be reconciled to God - because Christ IS God.]

[Dwight - I will comment on the rest of what you said later. As you know, these posts can take a lot of time, and I have a life to live, as I'm sure you do.]

 

[dwight92070]

I invite you to think in Moses.
Why is the "Law of Moses" called that way? Was it Moses or was it God who gave that Law?
If it was God... could we say that Moses was God?

A HUGE difference! There are not scores of verses saying or even implying that Moses IS God. However, with Jesus, those verses DO EXIST.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

A HUGE difference! There are not scores of verses saying or even implying that Moses IS God. However, with Jesus, those verses DO EXIST.

I agree with you in the need to look at all those verses: the ones that imply that Jesus is God and the ones that imply that He is not.
That's exactly my point.

We can't say that since the term "Law of God" and "Law of Moses" were interchangeable, that would mean that Moses is God.
By the same way, we can't say that since the terms "Gospel of Christ" and "Gospel of God", or "Church of Christ" and "Church of God" are used interchangeably, this means Christ is God.
We would need to resort to all other verses across the Bible, and that is what the two of us are trying to do.

 

[dwight92070]

In conclusion, in the five verses of the First Epistle to Timothy in which Paul mentions God and Jesus in the same sentence, Paul continues to make the same distinction he made in the 20 verses we reviewed in Romans. So, we now have 25 verses altogether that indicate what Paul thought about the subject.

*****

The Second Epistle to Timothy follows the same salutation pattern of the First Epistle, and gives The Father (but not Christ Jesus) the title of "God".
2 Tim 1:2 Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

In this other instance, Paul again consider God and Jesus as separate witness of his recommendation.
2 Tim 4.1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:

So, we have now come to 27 verses in which Paul has a fantastic opportunity to declare Jesus Christ as God, but does the opposite: separates God from Jesus... and in some of them, specifies that such God is the Father of Jesus.

I agree with you in the need to look at all those verses: the ones that imply that Jesus is God and the ones that imply that He is not.
That's exactly my point.

We can't say that since the term "Law of God" and "Law of Moses" were interchangeable, that would mean that Moses is God.
By the same way, we can't say that since the terms "Gospel of Christ" and "Gospel of God", or "Church of Christ" and "Church of God" are used interchangeably, this means Christ is God.
We would need to resort to all other verses across the Bible, and that is what the two of us are trying to do.

Whooaaa there! You're not going to get away with that! I just gave you "Exhibit A" of my evidence that Jesus is God. To be specific, the gospel of Jesus is the same as the gospel of God - therefore Jesus is God. I also gave you my reason why I think that is true. That is, the good news of and about Jesus is identical to the good news of and about God. By the way, to prove that to myself, I have already looked at many other verses.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but you can't just disregard and disallow my conclusion by saying, "We need to look at all the other verses across the Bible." I already have. If you haven't studied that, be my guest. But you can't just simply deny me the right to present evidence. There's only one gospel and it's all about God and it's all about Jesus, because Jesus is God. So my "Exhibit A" is NOT going away, just because, possibly, you have not studied that. You also presented the "straw man" about the law of Moses, even though you knew that the comparison was faulty to begin with, because there are NO verses telling us that Moses is or was God.

Exhibit A - The gospel of Jesus IS the gospel of God. Therefore Jesus IS God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Whooaaa there! You're not going to get away with that! I just gave you "Exhibit A" of my evidence that Jesus is God. To be specific, the gospel of Jesus is the same as the gospel of God - therefore Jesus is God. I also gave you my reason why I think that is true. That is, the good news of and about Jesus is identical to the good news of and about God. By the way, to prove that to myself, I have already looked at many other verses.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but you can't just disregard and disallow my conclusion by saying, "We need to look at all the other verses across the Bible." I already have. If you haven't studied that, be my guest. But you can't just simply deny me the right to present evidence. There's only one gospel and it's all about God and it's all about Jesus, because Jesus is God. So my "Exhibit A" is NOT going away, just because, possibly, you have not studied that. You also presented the "straw man" about the law of Moses, even though you knew that the comparison was faulty to begin with, because there are NO verses telling us that Moses is or was God.

Exhibit A - The gospel of Jesus IS the gospel of God. Therefore Jesus IS God.

My friend:

Exhibit A alone should not be used to support Jesus deity, for the reason I gave you:
We can't conclude that Moses is God based on the fact that the Law of Moses is the Law of God.

Let me give you another example:
Paul calls the Gospel of Christ "my gospel"
in the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ. (Romans 2:16)
So, if the gospel of Paul is the gospel of Christ... and if the gospel of Christ is the gospel of God... is Paul God?
Whose was the gospel preached to the Romans... Paul's? Christ's? God's?

You keep saying that Exhibit A should be accepted because there are OTHER verses who support the deity of Jesus.
OK, then proceed to those other verses.

 

[mikesw]

My friend:

Exhibit A alone should not be used to support Jesus deity, for the reason I gave you:
We can't conclude that Moses is God based on the fact that the Law of Moses is the Law of God.

Let me give you another example:
Paul calls the Gospel of Christ "my gospel"
in the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ. (Romans 2:16)
So, if the gospel of Paul is the gospel of Christ... and if the gospel of Christ is the gospel of God... is Paul God?
Whose was the gospel preached to the Romans... Paul's? Christ's? God's?

You keep saying that Exhibit A should be accepted because there are OTHER verses who support the deity of Jesus.
OK, then proceed to those other verses.

we can see your logic with a different example

bread crumbs are better than nothing
nothing is better than steak
bread crumbs are better than steak

It is pretty obvious there is no body of scriptures to suggest Paul is God nor Moses. The situation is not the same