Peterlag is confirming what synergy said but still denies he is confirming synergy.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Exactly! That proves Jesus is God, unless you're in the habit of hallucinating that common people can be in the form of God.
dwight92070
Well-known member
Oh my goodness! The arrogance is thick!
No, actually it refers to Jesus. He is the immediate context.
"But their minds were hardened; for UNTIL THIS VERY DAY (Paul's day) at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, BECAUSE IT IS REMOVED IN CHRIST. But TO THIS DAY whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns TO THE LORD, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY." 2 Cor.3:14-16
These verses say that CHRIST REMOVES THE VEIL. HE IS THE TOPIC. Then the next verse says:
"Now the Lord IS the Spirit."
God the Father is NOT the subject here. It is obviously Jesus. He IS the Spirit.
So, again, you are wrong.
The veil is on Peterlags understanding
Peterlag
Well-known member
I hate to be the one to break it to you but God is Spirit. Not Jesus. Therefore 2 Corinthians 3:17 is referring to God.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Jesus is not a common person. Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.
You are correct that Jesus is not a common person. Since he possesses the form of God then he is Deity.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I think it's interesting to note that the popularity of the phrase “Deity of Christ” never appears in the Bible, nor is Christ ever called the “Deity” in the Scriptures.
I think we will have to pass on your recommendation to reinstate that policy. I would not see the Unitarian heresy deserving of death, except that it may be the ultimate end of many of those who advocate it. If people are just ignorant of the divinity of Christ, that would not be an issue. It is the willful rejection of Christ that is a concern.
I have no idea what this would mean. The normal meaning of "son of God" must be skipped in your usage since you deny that the uniqueness is the divinity of Christ. Is he divine or is his blood and nature reduced to pure humanity?
Peterlag likes to say that Jesus did not preexist but had to give up what he was at the time he was born. Does it get any more confusing than that?
This reminds me of The Trail of Blood as being Baptist history of survival as Christian groups supposedly remaining independent but continuous despite the power of the Roman Catholics.. This image makes it seem like the Unitarians are claiming to have survived despite the efforts to stop their heresy. And the heresy never is reduced to one doctrine. Too many doctrines of Christianity are distorted when Unitarians try to justify their rejection of Christ.
You continue ignoring scripture
No, he emptied himself while in the form of God before becoming in the likeness of people because he did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped
Philippians 2:6–7 (LEB) — 6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man,
that is pre-existence, Which you keep ignoring
You pretend to be a bible scholar but constantly ignore scripture which contradicts your theology.
Peterlag
Well-known member
He emptied himself of his prince hood. There's nothing else there for me to ignore.
MTMattie
Well-known member
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.
Stop right there and explain if the Word was part of God as you would say (the Father, the only God) indicating that you believe that God the Father and the Word are 1 single entity. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG....
Then how can it possibly be that the Word was WITH God.
If I am in the same room as you I am with you. I am not part of you.
If I am in agreement with something religious or political you coud say I am with you. Yet I would not be part of you.
If I am pregnant many people will say "she is with child" But that child is a separate being from conception.
How can the Word be part of God yet separate from Him at the same time as to have made John write "and the Word was with God."
As you believe that The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one unit only....Ya think maybe John of the 4th gospel was a bit tetched in the head? And if this be true and if this be proven and if he wrote Revelation that sure does explain a lot.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I have detailed data on this and you can read it here... https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/data-on-john-1-1.2126/
So you object to the title of Deity for Jesus? Ok then we can go for a title of God which John 1:1 and Phil 2:6 has. Since only God can have the form of God then Jesus is God.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The Bible does not say only God can have the form of God. I have the form of my father and I'm not my father.
so you must no longer be human if I catch your meaning correctly. so the only thing like your father is you have two arms, two legs, a torso and a head but you are a Martian or something distinctly different from a human father. Or, that is the implication of your response if that is the way you view "form."
So, in reality, Peterlag presents an insufficient argument against Christ's deity. Also, the change from invisibility (or occasional visibility) of God (who was seen from the back) to visibility through incarnation correlates well with the morphe of the mythological gods in just the sense that this term could convey the idea of God incarnate being understood as a different visible appearance based on common cultural concepts of the era.
Last edited:
Similar threads
