You already said that you "deny Jesus being omnipresent UNTIL after his death and resurrection". That's all that's needed to prove that Jesus is God because only God is omnipresent. It is time to move on and build on that fact.
I have given my point of view. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God - the anointed human, THE CHRIST OF GOD.
You're reducing Philippians 2 into a mere moral lesson and, in doing so, gutting those verses of their stated facts. While Paul certainly exhorts believers to humility, he grounds that exhortation in who Christ already is: one who existed “in the form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ), a phrase that proves Jesus possesses divine status and nature, not a vague resemblance, and which cannot be equated with humanity being made “in the image of God.” Paul’s contrast is not between “being God” and “not being God,” but between rightful equality with God and voluntary self-humbling in the incarnation. The appeal to “God is not a man” confuses divine nature with assumed human nature, a confusion Scripture itself avoids by affirming that the eternal Son became man without ceasing to be God. Likewise, the claim that omnipresence would require Jesus’ physical presence at Lazarus’s death ignores kenosis: the Son retained His divine nature but did not constantly exercise its prerogatives in His incarnate mission.
Yep, the contrast is not between 'being God' and 'not being God' - I don't believe I said it was. (form = morphe = outward appearance --- so not about an inner nature) And yes, one of the purposes of this section is to teach unity and humility to the church at Philippi. Paul is encouraging the congregation there to let their manner of life be worthy. He encourages them to stand in one spirit striving for the faith of the gospel and to be in full accord and of one mind. He then encourages them to do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit but in humility to count others more significant than yourselves not looking toward your own interest but to the interest of others, i.e. let this mind be in you which was in Christ. So, it's about a man who had authority and privilege as the Son of God, the King of the Jews who did nothing from selfish ambition or conceit (form of God); but he emptied himself of his reputation, his standing, his rank taking on the attitude of a servant counting others more significant than himself --- not looking after his own interest but to the interest of others.
Scripture clearly states that God is not a man, a human being ---- nothing designating 'divine nature/human nature'.
Finally, John 5:21, 26 does not demote the Son but places Him alongside the Father as the giver of life itself, with the “granting” language describing ordered roles, not created dependency. Read in context, Philippians 2 and John 5 jointly affirm both Christ’s true humility and His undiminished deity, and the attempt to set attitude against ontology is a false dichotomy imposed on the text, not drawn from it.
It's more like you continue to denigrate Jesus and the fact that he is God. You don't lift people by knocking down others.
I, in no way, said or indicated that John 5:21, 26 demoted Jesus.
I do not denigrate Jesus nor do I denigrate God Himself. I respectfully keep them in their proper positions and give them honor and adoration for who they each are. . . . Almighty God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, my heavenly Father ---- the man Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God - the anointed human, THE CHRIST OF GOD, my brother.
Tell us how omnipresence is given. Mormons believe that is possible because they believe that believers become gods. Are you a Mormon?
No, I am not Mormon. As I have clearly stated before --- I do not know everything --- I don't claim to know everything. With that being said this better explains what I mean: (maybe omnipresent was the wrong word . . . I don't know)
The New Bible Dictionary
The Spirit is now definitely the Spirit of Christ, the other Counselor who has taken over Jesus’ role on earth. This means that Jesus is now present to the believer only in and through the Spirit, and that the mark of the Spirit is both the recognition of Jesus’ present status and the reproduction of the character of his sonship and resurrection life in the believer.
[JDG Douglas,
New Bible Dictionary (second edition) ©1962, ed. By JD Douglas, FF Bruce, JI Packer, N Hillyer, D Guthrie, AR Millard, DJ Wiseman, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., pages 1140-1]
The first "God" is "τον θεον", the God, the Father.
John 1:1c does not say the Word was "τον θεον", it says the Word was "θεος" (God).
and the Word became flesh as Jesus.
Your Modalism accusation is a result of your poor understanding of Greek.
Well, I never said I was a Greek scholar (maybe you really aren't either) but I can look things up and what I found was that in Greek Grammar nouns get different endings
theos, theon in order to show their relationship to the verb . . . . a difference grammatically but not in meaning so if 'God' in 1:1b is the Father then 'God' in 1:1c is the Father.
Thank you so much for quoting John 5:26, because when read together with John 1:4 it actually proves, rather than undermines, that Jesus is God. John 1:4 explicitly states, “in Him was life,” and immediately qualifies that life by saying it “was the light of men,” language John consistently uses for saving, eternal life, not just biological creation. This is the same life later described when Jesus says, “just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), a description Scripture reserves for God alone. The resurrection context does not downgrade the meaning of life but reveals its divine authority: the one who already possesses life in Himself is the one whose voice calls the dead from the tombs. The Father’s “granting” does not imply that the Son is a creature, but that he is the giver of Eternal Life. John 1 and John 5 converge on the same conclusion: that the Word who is “the light of men” is the same Son who raises the dead, demonstrating His full deity.
Scripture clearly depicts Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, as Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God - the anointed human, THE CHRIST OF GOD. But read it as you will.
Thanks again for another Trinitarian verse that describes the moment the Word, who was God, became flesh as Jesus. I can't thank you enough.
Luke 1:35 does not acknowledge the birth of God but the birth of a holy child who would be called the Son of God.
It seems sort of sacrilegious to me to even think of God being born.
I see you just ran out of ammunition fighting against the fact that Jesus is God in the qualitative state, in that he shares the same qualities as the Father such as omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Thanks again for that support.
It's not that I have 'run out of ammunition' ---- it's that I know I hate reading the same thing, over and over, page after page - one just gets tired of trying to get their point across clearly and plainly only to have what they have said twisted.
I may not use the right words sometimes to express what I mean but there is a big difference in what I specifically stated as qualitative, i.e. qualities - love, compassion, faithfulness, goodness, kindness, etc. from inherent attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence that YOU keep putting into my mouth.
So yes, we're beating a dead horse ----- enough has been said on this.
So that's your answer to my question of "where is it stated in the Bible that "He is either one or the other"? Goes to show you that you make statements that cannot be supported biblically.
You asked 'where is it stated in the Bible that "He is either one or the other"?
It doesn't nor does the Bible state that God is Triune, 3-in-one, nor that Jesus is a god-man, 100%God/100%man and really doesn't address the 'dual nature' thingy.
I told you IT DOESN'T - then only expanded upon what else the Bible does not state. Simple as that.
You're setting up a false dilemma by treating Christ’s incarnational humility as if it negates God’s own testimony about His Son. Scripture does indeed say the Father is “greater than all” and that the Son can “do nothing of Himself,” but John explicitly explains this not as incapacity or inferiority, but as perfect unity of action: “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise”. That's a claim no mere creature could make.
"Christ's incarnational humility" - would that actually be God's incarnational humility????
Well, Jesus of Narareth, a man attested by God made the claim.
When John asks what God’s testimony concerning His Son is, the answer is not vague: the Father testifies that the Son is the unique, eternal Son who gives life, judges the world, and is to be honored just as the Father is honored (John 5:21–23). I rest my case with those exact words.
I feel pretty safe - I honor the Son as I honor the Father.
Yep, I honor the Son as I honor the Father......I rest my case with those exact words.
