Thomas... My Lord and my God

[101G]

Philippians 2:6 is not a teaching on the trinity

did 101G say it was? so please explain how the Lord Jesus have a NATURE "EQUAL" WITH God? your answer please.

101G

 

[101G]

God does not have an arm. He's Spirit. It's a figure of speech.

a figure of speech on POWER? yes, the Lord Jesus, (God himself in flesh), is the POWER of God on Earth. 1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." THERE IS THAT "ARM" of, God in flesh.
do you understand now?
101G.

 

[Peterlag]

You pick one verse out of the four that you think you can counter what it says.

I assume nothing.
Rev 3:21 - "The one who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father on His throne."
We will sit with Jesus on His throne, just as Jesus sits with the Father on His throne.
Matt 25:31 - "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne."
He does not sit beside the throne. He sits ON the throne.
Rev 22:3 - "There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him"
One throne, two who sit on it, and they are called His and Him, singular not plural.
Rev 7:16-17 - "for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."
Lamb of God (Jesus) will sit in the center of the throne.
Notice in all of these that the throne is singular. There are not multiple thrones, but one singular throne, and Jesus sits on it with the Father.

I stay out of the book of Revelation because most have no idea how to read the book. It's written mostly concerning Israel and in a ton of figures of speech. It has almost nothing to do with Christians. Most quote “I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” thinking it's about Jesus when they go into Revelation. Today I wrote the following concerning Revelation, but mostly I stay out of the book.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God.” These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified in the context as God, not Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:4-5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who is, was and is to come” and Jesus Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega,” has caused many people to believe this verse refers to Christ. However, study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies solely to God. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, Aleph and Tau.

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4). That would make the expression the figure of speech, polarmerismos, similar to "and there was evening, and there was morning” which stands for the whole day, in Genesis 1. The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation."

 

[101G]

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God.” These words apply to God, not to Christ.

ERROR, it applies to the "Lord", JESUS. Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

now, are you agreeing that the "Lord" is God? ....... (smile).

101G.

 

[GodsGrace]

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The verses that are used to try to teach the trinity are all taken out of context, or not understood how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation. It's an evil Catholic concept that was sold to the world mostly by the power of the sword.

What does Mark 14:60-64 mean to you?:

60 The high priest stood up and came forward * and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?
64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.


When Mark wrote the above and when it happened....there was no Catholic Church around.

So what do YOU believe was the blasphemy?

 

[Peterlag]

What does Mark 14:60-64 mean to you?:

60 The high priest stood up and came forward * and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?
64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.


When Mark wrote the above and when it happened....there was no Catholic Church around.

So what do YOU believe was the blasphemy?

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Doug Brents]

I stay out of the book of Revelation because most have no idea how to read the book.

I know what you mean. Without the Spirit of God in you, it seems a garbled mess. But for those of us with the Spirit to guide us and reveal His truths to us through what was written, It is not so incomprehensible as you seem to think it is.

It's written mostly concerning Israel and in a ton of figures of speech. It has almost nothing to do with Christians. Most quote “I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” thinking it's about Jesus when they go into Revelation. Today I wrote the following concerning Revelation, but mostly I stay out of the book.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God.” These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified in the context as God, not Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:4-5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who is, was and is to come” and Jesus Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.

The phrase “the Alpha and the Omega,” has caused many people to believe this verse refers to Christ. However, study of the occurrences of the phrase indicates that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies solely to God. Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, Aleph and Tau.

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4). That would make the expression the figure of speech, polarmerismos, similar to "and there was evening, and there was morning” which stands for the whole day, in Genesis 1. The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation."

LOL, It is clear that you don't spend much time reading about the victory we who are in Christ have that is written in the book of Revelation. Look down just a few verses to Rev 1:17-18 - "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."
Who is the speaker here? Jesus, the Son of Man, the one who died and is alive again. And He says that He is the first and the last (Alpha (first letter in Greek alphabet) and Omega (Last letter in Greek alphabet)).

The phrase is all that you wrote here and more. As you note, in verses 4-5 it applies to the Father, but in verse 17 it applies to Jesus. Both are the beginning and end, first and last, start and finish, everything that is, has been, and ever will be.

 

[Peterlag]

I know what you mean. Without the Spirit of God in you, it seems a garbled mess. But for those of us with the Spirit to guide us and reveal His truths to us through what was written, It is not so incomprehensible as you seem to think it is.

LOL, It is clear that you don't spend much time reading about the victory we who are in Christ have that is written in the book of Revelation. Look down just a few verses to Rev 1:17-18 - "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."
Who is the speaker here? Jesus, the Son of Man, the one who died and is alive again. And He says that He is the first and the last (Alpha (first letter in Greek alphabet) and Omega (Last letter in Greek alphabet)).

The phrase is all that you wrote here and more. As you note, in verses 4-5 it applies to the Father, but in verse 17 it applies to Jesus. Both are the beginning and end, first and last, start and finish, everything that is, has been, and ever will be.

I stay out of the book of Revelation. It concerns mostly Israel and not Christians.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

But YOU stated that Jesus NEVER CLAIMED to be God?
So I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying that in Mark 14:60-64 Jesus is NOT claiming to be God?

 

[Peterlag]

But YOU stated that Jesus NEVER CLAIMED to be God?
So I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying that in Mark 14:60-64 Jesus is NOT claiming to be God?

Where do you see Jesus saying he was God? There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[synergy]

Where do you see Jesus saying he was God? There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

The name "I AM" is the name of God in the Old Testament. See Ex 3:14.

(Ex 3:14). And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

"I AM" is the name that Jesus called himself in John 8:24.

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

Conclusion: Jesus is God.

 

[Peterlag]

The name "I AM" is the name of God in the Old Testament. See Ex 3:14.

(Ex 3:14). And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

"I AM" is the name that Jesus called himself in John 8:24.

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

Conclusion: Jesus is God.

John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

 

[synergy]

John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

The Apostles overwhelmingly used the Greek OT (LXX) to quote from in order to write their Epistles. Therefore, the Greek OT has the Apostolic Seal of Approval and it makes use of the words "I AM" to declare God's name in Ex 3:14. And that is the exact same name Jesus called himself in John 8:24. Therefore, Jesus is God. Only Judaizers bitch and moan about that fact.

(Ex 3:14). And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

 

[Peterlag]

The Apostles overwhelmingly used the Greek OT (LXX) to quote from in order to write their Epistles. Therefore, the Greek OT has the Apostolic Seal of Approval and it makes use of the words "I AM" to declare God's name in Ex 3:14. And that is the exact same name Jesus called himself in John 8:24. Therefore, Jesus is God. Only Judaizers bitch and moan about that fact.

(Ex 3:14). And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

It looks like you changed the verse, but then again you have to so you can twist the verse. Below is what the verse really says. You have...

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus was indeed a man, but He did not start that way, nor is He still a man. He is now sitting on the throne with the Father in Heaven.

And he nor any of his followers identified him as God.

The language in which the NT was written is a dead language that was in common use for a very short period of time. That is part of what made it "the fullness of time" for Christ to come. Because it was not used for very long, there are very few ways to properly translate most passages of Scripture into any other language. Yes, it is possible to change the translation to fit your personal bias (transliteration and other ways of changing from the original text), but if the translator is honest with the original meanings of the words, there can be no bias introduced into the text.

There are over 100 Bibles translated in English. They do not all say the same things and some are indeed translated dishonestly and later additions, probably intentional corruptions, have been periodically discovered. Many of those discoveries have been alterations that ended up being a corruption done in favor of Trinitarianism to help bolster their position. The Bible is notoriously barren for Trinitarian theology. There are also various base manuscripts that contradict one another.

And the Scriptures are self-correcting, meaning that there are so many cross-references and quotes from one book to the other that it is very difficult to change the meaning of the whole.

Exactly.

Your logic is faulty.

No it isn't. It's just that I knew that you would want to argue that Jesus being God's servant doesn't negate himself being God. Do you apply a different standard for Jesus as God's servant and David as God's servant?

It could just be personification, but in verse 14 we are told that the Word (Logos) became (or took on, or put on) flesh. It wasn't just a personified idea, but it became a man. God became a man.

The word "became" in Scripture doesn't mean "took or put on" in the Bible. It appears all over the New Testament. For example, the same word is used in Matthew 8:24 where, suddenly, there was a storm that caused a turbulent sea. It isn't that the atmosphere or body of water "took or put on" a storm. It simply means what it says... the storm came into existence because of that was the natural cause and effect of the conditions that allowed it to be so. It isn't that the storm incarnated either nor did the storm pre-exist its own existence. Trinitarians read way too far in John 1:14, hence the dogmatic definition you provided above.

No, the versions that are not consistent with the vast majority of other translations. That is one reason it is a good thing that there are numerous translations done by many different teams. They can be used to crosscheck each other.

Which version do you like?

There is no punctuation given in the Greek text. So it requires the form of the words used to tell us what they mean. These versions of this verse do not agree with the original language word's meanings, nor do they agree with the rest of Scripture's statements about who and what Jesus is.

Yes the KJV and RSV translation of Romans 9:5 are honest translations. Your preferred version, if a subjective comma or period were moved around in that sentence, could be made to not state that Jesus is God. Also translations don't necessarily follow the word order of the Greek.

You are correct that 2 Pet 1:1-2 is not a standalone passage, nor does it disagree with the rest of Scripture. It states clearly, as does the rest of Scripture, that Jesus is God.

Nope.

John 10:25-38 - "Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
The Pharisees accuse Him of saying He is the Son of God (equal with God), and He says that His works testify for themselves. And they take what He said as confirmation that He was blaspheming. They understood exactly what He was claiming, and if it had been a false claim they would have been right in executing Him for blasphemy. But it just so happens that He was the only man ever that this claim was not false, nor was it blasphemy.

Jesus refuted their accusation by quoting Psalm 82:6 where the sons of the Most High are all gods. Jesus' point was that he is also a son of God (the Most High) so why would they accuse him of blasphemy for that when they themselves can make the same claim.

Luke 22:70 - "And they all said, “So You are the Son of God?” And He said to them, 'You say correctly that I am.' 71 And then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth!'"
Again, the Pharisees accuse Him of saying He is the Son of God (equal with God), and He says that they are correct. And they take what He said as confirmation that He was blaspheming. They understood exactly what He was claiming, and if it had been a false claim they would have been right in executing Him for blasphemy. But it just so happens that He was the only man ever that this claim was not false, nor was it blasphemy.

As John 10:25-38 proves, saying one is the son of God is not a claim to being God or equal to God or else that would mean any or all of God's child could claim equality with God. Of course the Pharisees overlooked that because they simply were looking for a way gaslight Jesus into saying something he never did, so they tried to be clever and make an argument. Now you see why Jesus never came right out and said he is God directly. It would have been blasphemy indeed.

The point in those verses is that Jesus is the ONLY Son of God.
He was begotten by God through Mary. But Jesus preexisted His birth through Mary, and His spirit was not created as all other human's souls are.

Jesus the Son of Man and Son of God are begotten according to Scripture. It's because there aren't two Jesus'. The human is the Son of God. Always was, always will be.

Absolutely, and all of these cases are in relation to His incarnation, not His spiritual origins. He is and was God before He became a man, and while He was less than the Father (even less than the angels) while incarnated, He started as, and went back to being, equal with the Father.

This is just back to square one. There is nothing about Jesus being incarnated in the Bible.

 

[Peterlag]

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[synergy]

It looks like you changed the verse, but then again you have to so you can twist the verse. Below is what the verse really says. You have...

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Notice that the "he" in your quoted verse is italicized. That means that it is not in the original text and makes my quote correct. That shows once again just how weak and heretical your position is. It's back to the drawing board for you to brew up more falsehoods and heresies.

 

[synergy]

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

Kenotic Trinitarianism (where Jesus momentarily humbled himself to the level of a servant while still retaining his Deity) was already in the Bible. See Phil 2:5-7. It wasn't "developed" afterwards. That's your heresies infecting your mind. Try keeping to Biblical and historical facts.

Phil 2
5 Indeed, let this attitude be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
6 Though he was by nature God, he did not consider equality with God as a prize to be displayed,
7 but he emptied himself by taking the nature of a servant.

 

[Doug Brents]

I stay out of the book of Revelation. It concerns mostly Israel and not Christians.

Not true at all. Who is it that will stand at Christ's right hand at Judgement? Only those who are in Christ. Only those who have been washed in His blood. This includes those who were righteous under the OC (Israel), AND those who are righteous under the NC (the Church).

 

[Doug Brents]

And he nor any of his followers identified him as God.

You are blind to the truth, because the Spirit of God is not in you.

There are over 100 Bibles translated in English. They do not all say the same things and some are indeed translated dishonestly and later additions, probably intentional corruptions, have been periodically discovered. Many of those discoveries have been alterations that ended up being a corruption done in favor of Trinitarianism to help bolster their position. The Bible is notoriously barren for Trinitarian theology. There are also various base manuscripts that contradict one another.

Your opinion is noted, thank you.

No it isn't. It's just that I knew that you would want to argue that Jesus being God's servant doesn't negate himself being God. Do you apply a different standard for Jesus as God's servant and David as God's servant?

No, there is only one standard. Neither David, nor God, nor any of David's followers ever claimed that he was God. If David had claimed to be God, then he would have had to prove that claim or be executed as a blasphemer.
Jesus claimed He was God, God supported Jesus' claim that He was God, and Jesus' followers claimed He was God. Jesus was executed because the Pharisees claimed that He was a blasphemer, but He was raised from the dead proving that He was not a blasphemer but really is God.

The word "became" in Scripture doesn't mean "took or put on" in the Bible. It appears all over the New Testament. For example, the same word is used in Matthew 8:24 where, suddenly, there was a storm that caused a turbulent sea. It isn't that the atmosphere or body of water "took or put on" a storm. It simply means what it says... the storm came into existence because of that was the natural cause and effect of the conditions that allowed it to be so. It isn't that the storm incarnated either nor did the storm pre-exist its own existence. Trinitarians read way too far in John 1:14, hence the dogmatic definition you provided above.

Just wow, smh. Your comparison is neither accurate, nor compelling. This is not the only passage that talks about Jesus coming down from Heaven and taking on flesh as a man. It is one of the most clear, but certainly not the only one.

Which version do you like?

Mostly I read from the NASB, but when I study, I compare passages in the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV, and the RSV (I stick with the word-for-word translations, see the chart below).

Yes the KJV and RSV translation of Romans 9:5 are honest translations. Your preferred version, if a subjective comma or period were moved around in that sentence, could be made to not state that Jesus is God. Also translations don't necessarily follow the word order of the Greek.

The word order in Greek is meaningless. It is the word form that is used that designates where in the English sentence it should go. And the word forms in Rom 9:5 indicate that those sentences are saying Jesus is God.

Jesus refuted their accusation by quoting Psalm 82:6 where the sons of the Most High are all gods. Jesus' point was that he is also a son of God (the Most High) so why would they accuse him of blasphemy for that when they themselves can make the same claim.

They are gods, but not the God. Jesus is the God. Jesus did not claim to be just another ordinary person, or equal with the other men there. He claimed to be God, the creator of all that exists. And that is what they were accusing Him of claiming.

As John 10:25-38 proves, saying one is the son of God is not a claim to being God or equal to God or else that would mean any or all of God's child could claim equality with God. Of course the Pharisees overlooked that because they simply were looking for a way gaslight Jesus into saying something he never did, so they tried to be clever and make an argument. Now you see why Jesus never came right out and said he is God directly. It would have been blasphemy indeed.

It would not be blasphemy if it is true, which it is. Jesus said, "You say correctly that I am." He agreed with them that He was indeed equal with God the Father.

Jesus the Son of Man and Son of God are begotten according to Scripture. It's because there aren't two Jesus'. The human is the Son of God. Always was, always will be.

Again, what does it mean to be a "Son" in the first century?

This is just back to square one. There is nothing about Jesus being incarnated in the Bible.

You refuse to see it, but it is there. When you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you and helping you see the Truth, come back and we can talk again.