Your Views on The Trinity

[Runningman]

Of course I reject a literal plain reading of text that is allegorical. I have picked up on characteristics of scripture and prophecy. Your hyperliteralist reading prevents you from understanding the scriptures properly. Do you think you can learn from someone how to read scripture in the style written instead of hyperliteralism?

I have been proven correct in this assessment of the unitarian as limiting himself to a hyperliteralist reading that blocks the actual meaning of the text. I suspect there also is a Sadducee-styled materialist reading too

You make it sound like God and all of the prophets needed to run everything by you first to make sure it checks out with you before they said anything. I think it's safe to say that the Bible is the worst enemy of trinitarianism. I can't imagine anything more ironic than claiming to adhere to a book so thoroughly and completely betrays you.

 

[mikesw]

You make it sound like God and all of the prophets needed to run everything by you first to make sure it checks out with you before they said anything. I think it's safe to say that the Bible is the worst enemy of trinitarianism. I can't imagine anything more ironic than claiming to adhere to a book so thoroughly and completely betrays you.

You sure try hard to deny the obvious. If you think the bible is against who Jesus is, you will have to prove it. John 1 is blatant about the deity of Jesus. I have identified the problems that leave you confused. It has nothing to do with me controlling God and the prophets. They have spoken and you reject it.
We even see God saying he comes himself.

Isaiah 63:8–9 (LXX)
8And he said, “Are they not my people? Children, they will never rebel.” And he became their salvation
9from all their affliction. Not an elder or a messenger but he himself has saved them, because he loved them and spared them. He himself ransomed them and took them up and exalted them all the days of old.

 

[Runningman]

You sure try hard to deny the obvious. If you think the bible is against who Jesus is, you will have to prove it. John 1 is blatant about the deity of Jesus. I have identified the problems that leave you confused. It has nothing to do with me controlling God and the prophets. They have spoken and you reject it.
We even see God saying he comes himself.

Isaiah 63:8–9 (LXX)
8And he said, “Are they not my people? Children, they will never rebel.” And he became their salvation
9from all their affliction. Not an elder or a messenger but he himself has saved them, because he loved them and spared them. He himself ransomed them and took them up and exalted them all the days of old.

Not really sure what you think your point is unless you are just trying to provide another good argument against trinitarianism that I didn't notice until now. The people in Isaiah 63:9 clearly refers to God's people being those who were ransomed and exalted from eternity. Of course that isn't to say the Jewish people literally pre-existed their physical births. If anything this is a strong prooftext against your hyper-literalist interpretation of pre-existence.

 

[mikesw]

Not really sure what you think your point is unless you are just trying to provide another good argument against trinitarianism that I didn't notice until now. The people in Isaiah 63:9 clearly refers to God's people being those who were ransomed and exalted from eternity. Of course that isn't to say the Jewish people literally pre-existed their physical births. If anything this is a strong prooftext against your hyper-literalist interpretation of pre-existence.

God came and suffered on earth. We know that because we have the whole account of all that Jesus went through on the cross.

This only fits in the time of Christ as far as I can tell. This talks about restoring Israel after all these years. so I have no idea what your point is about pre-existence. Too much confusion in your thinking.

I do not think God is pre-existing God. But this show God speaking of doing what we see in Christ. Are you saying they both came down to earth and both were afflicted?

 

[Runningman]

God came and suffered on earth. We know that because we have the whole account of all that Jesus went through on the cross.

Not according to anything that Scripture says. As you already know, God made the Jesus the Christ according to Acts 2:36. Too many heresies to list.

Do you believe God became sin?

2 Cor. 5
21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

This only fits in the time of Christ as far as I can tell. This talks about restoring Israel after all these years. so I have no idea what your point is about pre-existence. Too much confusion in your thinking.

Read Isaiah 63:8,9 again. It's talking about "them" not Jesus. It's referring to a long of people being exalted from eternity. It's referring to Jesus and the other Jewish people being ransomed and exalted by God. Not a literal eternal pre-existence of the Jewish people here.

Isaiah 63:8–9 (LXX)
8And he said, “Are they not my people? Children, they will never rebel.” And he became their salvation
9from all their affliction. Not an elder or a messenger but he himself has saved them, because he loved them and spared them. He himself ransomed them and took them up and exalted them all the days of old.

I do not think God is pre-existing God. But this show God speaking of doing what we see in Christ. Are you saying they both came down to earth and both were afflicted?

Jesus didn't pre-exist according to Scripture. I asked you this once already and you didn't reply yet, but was the Lamb literally slain from before the world was created?

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

 

[mikesw]

Not according to anything that Scripture says. As you already know, God made the Jesus the Christ according to Acts 2:36. Too many heresies to list.

Do you believe God became sin?

2 Cor. 5
21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

I believe Jesus after pre-existence as deity died for our sins and became sin on our behalf. How this works metaphysically is something I am not sure we will understand. We could reasonably recognize God's ability to experience this having been in flesh as Jesus. So we do not need to stumble over your lack of understanding how this could happen metaphysically.

Read Isaiah 63:8,9 again. It's talking about "them" not Jesus. It's referring to a long of people being exalted from eternity. It's referring to Jesus and the other Jewish people being ransomed and exalted by God. Not a literal eternal pre-existence of the Jewish people here.

Isaiah 63:8–9 (LXX)
8And he said, “Are they not my people? Children, they will never rebel.” And he became their salvation
9from all their affliction. Not an elder or a messenger but he himself has saved them, because he loved them and spared them. He himself ransomed them and took them up and exalted them all the days of old.

I posted a retraction of this as the time of Christ. It has stuff reflecting more the ancient era.

Jesus didn't pre-exist according to Scripture. I asked you this once already and you didn't reply yet, but was the Lamb literally slain from before the world was created?

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

There is another ordering of words in consideration
Revelation 13:8 (NASB95)
8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Nothing is contradicting the deity of Christ that is clearly shown in in John 1

 

[Capbook]

Seems you missed everything. I won't let you off the hook that easy with attempting to change the subject.

I did not change the subject, you just stick to your preconceived belief.

1. Does the first and the last automatically mean someone is God? Yes or no.
2. Was the First and the Last dead at any point? Yes or no.

1. Yes, you just won't believe יהוה the Almighty God the Father's words, that made you misled.

Isa 41:4 “Who has performed and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? ‘I, יהוה, am the first, and with the last I am He.’ ”

2. No, because when you read the above verse, you just read your own presumptions and preconceptions without knowing it.
Maybe knowing or just avoiding the truth. I wonder how many times would I need to quote 1Peter 3:18 to be understood?
Am I quoting a verse hard to understand or the someone is hard to understand.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Revelation 1
17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades.

Revelation 1:4-8 doesn't call Jesus the Almighty. Jesus is never called the Almighty in the entire Bible. Again, read the context.

Let me elaborate these more fully;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesus
1. First and the Last . . . . . . . . . . . Isa 41:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:17
2. Beginning and the end . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13
3. Alpha and Omega . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13

Following your eisegesis, as all the Fathers titles are also of Jesus, as Jesus said "all things the Father had are mine.(John 16:15)
If you interpret Jesus Divine being died, you also made God the Father died.
You have to be awake because not knowing Jesus involves eternal life.(John 17:3, 1 John 5:11-20)

 

[Capbook]

When you have more than half of the Greek scholars translating it the way I see it then you have a problem.

I believe the one who have the problem is the one opposing without presenting evidence.

 

[Runningman]

I did not change the subject, you just stick to your preconceived belief.

1. Yes, you just won't believe יהוה the Almighty God the Father's words, that made you misled.

Isa 41:4 “Who has performed and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? ‘I, יהוה, am the first, and with the last I am He.’ ”

2. No, because when you read the above verse, you just read your own presumptions and preconceptions without knowing it.
Maybe knowing or just avoiding the truth. I wonder how many times would I need to quote 1Peter 3:18 to be understood?
Am I quoting a verse hard to understand or the someone is hard to understand.

I am aware that God and Jesus are both called the First and Last, that doesn't mean Jesus is God though. You're making the assumption that being "First and Last" means someone is God and it does not. Remember, the First and Last died, however, God can't die because He is immortal. Being immortal means that someone cannot die even one time.

1 Timothy 6
16He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

This is also something I quote to prove Jesus didn't resurrect himself. See there where it says "made alive in the spirit?" Made alive means resurrect or the raise up. It says Jesus' spirit was resurrected, brought back to live again, because it was dead.

Let me elaborate these more fully;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesus
1. First and the Last . . . . . . . . . . . Isa 41:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:17
2. Beginning and the end . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13
3. Alpha and Omega . . . . . . . . . . Rev 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rev 22:13

Following your eisegesis, as all the Fathers titles are also of Jesus, as Jesus said "all things the Father had are mine.(John 16:15)

You just pointed out how Jesus said "all things the Father had are mine" (John 16:15) but did you know that Paul taught everyone else that they will receive the same things Jesus did from his Father?

Romans 8
17And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

So getting the same things as Jesus can't make someone God or else that would mean others are God too.

If you interpret Jesus Divine being died, you also made God the Father died.

No problem at all because Jesus is not the "Divine Being" so the Divine Being didn't die. Jesus is a mortal man who required God to resurrect his body and spirit (1 Peter 3:18)

You have to be awake because not knowing Jesus involves eternal life.(John 17:3, 1 John 5:11-20)

Fully aware of that and agree. However, belief in God and Jesus aren't the same things.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

 

[Peterlag]

I believe the one who have the problem is the one opposing without presenting evidence.

I presented evidence. I presented 22 different Translations written by Greek scholars and you have rejected all of it and then say I present nothing.

 

[Runningman]

I believe Jesus after pre-existence as deity died for our sins and became sin on our behalf. How this works metaphysically is something I am not sure we will understand. We could reasonably recognize God's ability to experience this having been in flesh as Jesus. So we do not need to stumble over your lack of understanding how this could happen metaphysically.

I posted a retraction of this as the time of Christ. It has stuff reflecting more the ancient era.

There is another ordering of words in consideration
Revelation 13:8 (NASB95)
8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Nothing is contradicting the deity of Christ that is clearly shown in in John 1

I can take a swing at this.

There are numerous examples where people in the Bible are said to have be exalted "from the days of old" which is just a watered down way of saying "from eternity" or "forever." You may notice this little switcheroo that trinitarians make sometimes in their Bibles to help support later theological assumptions while hoping no one notices.

To be clear, I don't believe that people literally pre-exist their life in a conscious state, but the Bible repeatedly speaks of regular people as if they do. For example, God "foreknew" Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5. Paul spoke about the destiny God had declared about Jacob and Esau before they were even born in Romans 9:11-13. David said his life was pre-recorded in God's knowledge in Psalm 139:16. Every believer is said to have been chosen before creation in Ephesians 1:4. Grace was given to people before they even existed yet in 1 Timothy 1:9. Paul foreordained in Galatians 1:15.

Yet you know what they all have in common? None of them actually existed yet even though they wrote about it as though they did.

So when we get to verses like John 17:5 or Revelation 13:8, there is no need to suddenly reinterpret the language as literal pre-existence. Scripture has already established a consistent pattern: God speaks of people as though they existed already because in His foreknowledge, they did, but not because they were conscious beings prior to their birth.

So I don't see the "Jesus pre-existed" argument as very convincing based on the verses you provided.

What would help you immensely is if Jesus could be positively identified in the Old Testament, but there is nothing explicit about that. You are making assumptions, not rightly dividing the Bible.

 

[mikesw]

I can take a swing at this.

There are numerous examples where people in the Bible are said to have be exalted "from the days of old" which is just a watered down way of saying "from eternity" or "forever." You may notice this little switcheroo that trinitarians make sometimes in their Bibles to help support later theological assumptions while hoping no one notices.

To be clear, I don't believe that people literally pre-exist their life in a conscious state, but the Bible repeatedly speaks of regular people as if they do. For example, God "foreknew" Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5. Paul spoke about the destiny God had declared about Jacob and Esau before they were even born in Romans 9:11-13. David said his life was pre-recorder in God's knowledge in Psalm 139:16. Every believer is said to have been chosen before creation in Ephesians 1:4. Grace was given to people before they even existed yet in 1 Timothy 1:9. Paul foreordained in Galatians 1:15.

Yet you know what they all have in common? None of them actually existed yet at the time they were written about.

No one else is shown to preexist with God. So you just are throwing flimsy ideas into the mix and hope something works. I do not even know where you are offering substance with these passages.

So when we get to verses like John 17:5 or Revelation 13:8, there is no need to suddenly reinterpret the language as literal pre-existence. Scripture has already established a consistent pattern: God speaks of people as though they existed already because in His foreknowledge, they did, but not because they were conscious beings prior to their birth.

You just neglect the obvious. That does not help in conversations. You use the weaker translation of Rev 13:8 as if that makes for a reasoned argument. You just have to choose something you hoped would make sense instead of something reasonable.

So I don't see the "Jesus pre-existed" argument as very convincing based on the verses you provided.

That is your failure. You are the one responsible to prove your novel doctrine should be heard by scholars and theologians to convince them that scripture should be viewed your way.

What would help you immensely is if Jesus could be positively identified in the Old Testament, but there is nothing explicit about that. You are making assumptions, not rightly dividing the Bible.

That is so against the scriptures. There is no bodily Jesus in the OT as if he incarnated back then but remained hidden. Your response makes no sense in any context.

 

[Capbook]

I am aware that God and Jesus are both called the First and Last, that doesn't mean Jesus is God though. You're making the assumption that being "First and Last" means someone is God and it does not. Remember, the First and Last died, however, God can't die because He is immortal. Being immortal means that someone cannot die even one time.

1 Timothy 6
16He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Why the Almighty Father called Jesus God, that Unitarians cannot?(Heb 1:8,9)
Are all or just some Unitarians deny Almighty God the Father's words?
Yes, immortal God Jesus cannot die, if you listen to the Father's words?
I always wonder how many times would I quote 1peter 3:18 to be understood. (I believe this is the 5th times or less)

This is also something I quote to prove Jesus didn't resurrect himself. See there where it says "made alive in the spirit?" Made alive means resurrect or the raise up. It says Jesus' spirit was resurrected, brought back to live again, because it was dead.

The sixth time of 1 Peter 3:18, is it really hard to digest?
Or someone is hard to understand.

You just pointed out how Jesus said "all things the Father had are mine" (John 16:15) but did you know that Paul taught everyone else that they will receive the same things Jesus did from his Father?

Romans 8
17And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

So getting the same things as Jesus can't make someone God or else that would mean others are God too.

Can you say what Jesus said? Ok post here and say, "All things the Father had are mine."

No problem at all because Jesus is not the "Divine Being" so the Divine Being didn't die. Jesus is a mortal man who required God to resurrect his body and spirit (1 Peter 3:18)

Good, you now accept only Jesus flesh died. As for Jesus as Divine being, Bible lexicons defined "Godhead" in Colo 2:9, in Greek "θεότης theotēs" as - the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.
The Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic domain proves that Jesus is in the nature or state of being God, Deity, Divine nature, divine being.
Based on evidence presented, not just opinion.

G2320
θεότης theotēs
the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Fully aware of that and agree. However, belief in God and Jesus aren't the same things.

John 14
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe in Me as well.

Good, you learned your lesson well.

 

[Runningman]

No one else is shown to preexist with God. So you just are throwing flimsy ideas into the mix and hope something works. I do not even know where you are offering substance with these passages.

And neither is Jesus shown to have pre-existed with God. That's my point. The exegetical precedent in all of Scripture is that even though people are spoke of as having pre-existed, there is no evidence they actually pre-existed. Applying your same line of reasoning, we must argue for the pre-existence of everyone else as well.

You just neglect the obvious. That does not help in conversations. You use the weaker translation of Rev 13:8 as if that makes for a reasoned argument. You just have to choose something you hoped would make sense instead of something reasonable.

It's the stronger translation and a very common translation. It's an honest translation. I believe you are using the translation that doesn't grind the doctrine of the trinity's gears so much. I have observed many of you just find a new Bible when you don't like what one or the other says.

That is your failure. You are the one responsible to prove your novel doctrine should be heard by scholars and theologians to convince them that scripture should be viewed your way.

No, I have succeeded with flying colors. Your failure is that you keep claiming Jesus pre-existed and yet you cannot find anything in the entire Bible that shows what he was doing before he was born. I know you have tried, but, again, there is nothing explicit about your assumptions anywhere that would support you.

That is so against the scriptures. There is no bodily Jesus in the OT as if he incarnated back then but remained hidden. Your response makes no sense in any context.

Where is Jesus in any shape or form in the Old Testament? By all accounts, there are only messianic prophecies of a coming future messiah who did not exist yet.

 

[mikesw]

And neither is Jesus shown to have pre-existed with God. That's my point. The exegetical precedent in all of Scripture is that even though people are spoke of as having pre-existed, there is no evidence they actually pre-existed. Applying your same line of reasoning, we must argue for the pre-existence of everyone else as well.

Really? John 1 shows the pre-existence and other passages show it for Christ Jesus. So you just deny those so you do not have to admit the truth. No one else has to pre-existence as deity and take on flesh for this to be true about God's one and only Son.
Just because you find some things hardly similar to the divine One who became flesh, that does not make for an argument against Christ.

It's the stronger translation and a very common translation. It's an honest translation. I believe you are using the translation that doesn't grind the doctrine of the trinity's gears so much. I have observed many of you just find a new Bible when you don't like what one or the other says.

That is just your preference from translations that probably make no sense. That hardly makes for a good argument.

So you just take a translation as your favorite when you think it denounces Christ. When a passage is clear about his divinity and an incarnation of the One through whom all things came into being, your just skip it or distort the passage. That hardly is honest interpretation.

No, I have succeeded with flying colors. Your failure is that you keep claiming Jesus pre-existed and yet you cannot find anything in the entire Bible that shows what he was doing before he was born. I know you have tried, but, again, there is nothing explicit about your assumptions anywhere that would support you.

He created all things. He seems to be the Angel of the Lord and the Word that came to the prophets. You just treat his relevance as nothing.

Where is Jesus in any shape or form in the Old Testament? By all accounts, there are only messianic prophecies of a coming future messiah who did not exist yet.

I should ask you for clarification since you keep on asking such a question. What do you mean by finding Jesus in the OT? Do you mean a physical body that is named Jesus?
As to the future Messiah, we have his divinity in Dan 7:13-14. Does God have to tell anyone the full plan in the OT? Why so? You are presuming on what God should have done to satisfy your unusual request.

 

[Capbook]

I presented evidence. I presented 22 different Translations written by Greek scholars and you have rejected all of it and then say I present nothing.

I am not sure if it was for me.

Ok, be it that way, as, "appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Now, can you quote a single verse outside Titus 2:13, about the "appearing of the glory of the great God refer to the Father?"
If you cannot provide, would you accept and confirm that Titus 2:13 "appearing" exclusively refer to Jesus?
See my support for Jesus below;

1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

 

[Peterlag]

I am not sure if it was for me.

Ok, be it that way, as, "appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Now, can you quote a single verse outside Titus 2:13, about the "appearing of the glory of the great God refer to the Father?"
If you cannot provide, would you accept and confirm that Titus 2:13 "appearing" exclusively refer to Jesus?
See my support for Jesus below;

1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

You might be right. For you I may have only given you this...

There's a whole bunch of Bibles that have it's the glory of God that will be appearing. The NIV below also has it that way. You got nothing.

New International Version
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

 

[Capbook]

Where is Jesus in any shape or form in the Old Testament? By all accounts, there are only messianic prophecies of a coming future messiah who did not exist yet.

Runningman, may I know what is your take of what Daniel saw. Who the "Ancient of Days" do you refer to?
And the "Son of Man" Who do you refer Him to?
Are they separate two persons or just one person?

Dan 7:9 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
Dan 7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
Dan 7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

 

[Capbook]

You might be right. For you I may have only given you this...

There's a whole bunch of Bibles that have it's the glory of God that will be appearing. The NIV below also has it that way. You got nothing.

New International Version
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Is the request "outside Titus 2:13" difficult to digest, or just someone hard to understand?

 

[Runningman]

Why the Almighty Father called Jesus God, that Unitarians cannot?(Heb 1:8,9)
Are all or just some Unitarians deny Almighty God the Father's words?
Yes, immortal God Jesus cannot die, if you listen to the Father's words?
I always wonder how many times would I quote 1peter 3:18 to be understood. (I believe this is the 5th times or less)

The sixth time of 1 Peter 3:18, is it really hard to digest?
Or someone is hard to understand.

Can you say what Jesus said? Ok post here and say, "All things the Father had are mine."

Good, you now accept only Jesus flesh died. As for Jesus as Divine being, Bible lexicons defined "Godhead" in Colo 2:9, in Greek "θεότης theotēs" as - the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.
The Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic domain proves that Jesus is in the nature or state of being God, Deity, Divine nature, divine being.
Based on evidence presented, not just opinion.

G2320
θεότης theotēs
the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)


Good, you learned your lesson well.

I don't know if you have ready everything I said to you or not, but titles are not sufficient to help your point. I have already shown you how humans can share titles with God without being God:

1. In Ezra 7:12 Artaxerxes is called king of kings, but in 1 Timothy 6:15 we have the Father being referred to as a King of kings.
2. The Father is called Lord of lords in Deuteronomy 10:17, but Abraham is called my Lord is Genesis 24:9,10.
3. The Father called elohim in Genesis 1:1, Moses called elohim in Exodus 7:1, God's sons called elohim in Psalm 82:6.
4. The Father called Shepherd in Psalm 23:1, humans referred to as shepherd in Ezekiel 34 and 1 Samuel 17:34
5. YHWH is identified as the Father in Malachi 2:10 and others called father in Genesis 45:8 for example.
6. The Father called Savior in Isaiah 43:11, other humans called saviors in Judges 3:9 and Obadiah 1:21
7. The Father called Judge in Genesis 18:25, other humans called judges in Deuteronomy 16:18

So obviously sharing the "First and Last" title with God and saying someone is God because of that is called a category error. Jesus is exhaustively distinct from God throughout the Bible. Hence this is why the First and Last died, but God didn't die. You seem to be avoiding this obvious Achilles heel because it ruined your augment pages ago.