The Divinity of Christ

[Oeste]

What is my belief - Jesus is a man by his nature.
He is not God
He is the Son of God
He is the Son of Man

I actually agree with this. The Son of God of course is not a literal son like humans have sons and daughters. It is a designation of profound spiritual mystery that helps us understand the uniqueness and greatness of Jesus in regards to other men, and being the most perfect reflection of Divine perfections and attributes.

And I can't imagine a more inconsistent approach to scripture.

If "Son of God" means he's not God, then "Son of Man" means he's not man. That would be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of God" means he's God, then "Son of Man" means he's man, that would also be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of Man" means he's NOT man, while "Son of God" means he IS God, that would be inconsistent hermeneutics.

Likewise if "Son of Man" means he's man, while "Son of God" means he is NOT God (which is what both of you assert), we once again have inconsistent hermeneutics, and the only basis I can see for that is doctrine.

Trust the authors. If "Son of God" means Jesus is NOT God while "Son of Man" means he IS man, then the authors would have used a differing rather than consistent term to describe both. In other words, the term "SON OF..." would not have been applied to both God and man if it was the authors' intent to convey totally different meanings.

I respectfully submit these vastly differing interpretations for "Son of..." as it applies to man and God are not being provided by scripture but by an admittedly God fearing but misguided Arian community.

We must go where scripture leads us. Jesus is Man and Jesus is God, not part-God, not part-man, not just God nor just man, but 100% both, much like you can be a carpenter and husband at the same time. He is Son of Man and Son of God who can speak and is spoken of frequently from one perspective or the other within scripture.

 

[Muffled]

After the last apostle died (John) in 100 AD, a lot of false prophets appeared one of them is:

Tertullian (/tərˈtʌliən/), full name Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, c. 155 – c. 240 AD, was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. Of Berber origin, he was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was an early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology."

Though conservative in his worldview, Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas). According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Tertullian's trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member". A similar word had been used earlier in Greek, though Tertullian gives the oldest extant use of the terminology as later incorporated into the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, or as the Athanasian Creed, or both. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three persons, one substance" as the Latin "tres personae, una substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis hypostases, homoousios"). Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the "substance" of Tertullian, however, was a material substance that did not refer to a single God, but to the sharing of a portion of the substance of the Father (the only being who was fully God) with the Son and, through the Son, with the Holy Spirit. He wrote his understanding of the three members of the trinity after becoming a Montanist.

Tertullian - Wikipedia

Who is my Lord Jesus according to himself?
Let us read from a Catholic Version of the Bible:
View attachment 16979

John 8:40New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.


He did not say I am a man-god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
He did not say I am god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
That would be silly.

What did he say?
Jesus said he was a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God

I believe I see no claim that he was a prophet. He was a theologian and subject to some less than valid reasoning but then so many are.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

I believe then that we may say that Jesus said He is God and man.

I believe this is the null hypothesis and there is no reason why He should say this.

I believe that might be reason enough for Him not to say it, not because it is false but simply because it is silly.

 

[Muffled]

That came from Tertullian.

If there is proof of the Trinity in the Bible and...if the distinction of the Trinity is clearly displayed - Tertullian was speaking the truth, if not....

View attachment 16986

I don't believe speaking the truth by itself makes a person a prophet. An atheist can speak the truth and he certainly would not be considered a prophet. Technically a prophet is a person who tells what God will do in the future.

I believe He is speaking the truth. However I suggest that his deductions may be flawed.

 

[MJFlores]

I believe I see no claim that he was a prophet. He was a theologian and subject to some less than valid reasoning but then so many are.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

I believe then that we may say that Jesus said He is God and man.

I believe this is the null hypothesis and there is no reason why He should say this.

I believe that might be reason enough for Him not to say it, not because it is false but simply because it is silly.

I would like to put into spot

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

as in really one physically?
where is the other?
HS?
not one with them?

He did not say I, HS and Father are one, did he?
Move up the verses from 10:30 so we could find where they are one.

John 10:25-30 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

Jesus answered, “I told you already, but you did not believe. I do miracles in my Father’s name. These miracles show who I am. But you do not believe, because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give my sheep eternal life. They will never die, and no one can take them out of my hand. My Father is the one who gave them to me, and he is greater than all. No one can steal my sheep out of his hand. The Father and I are one.”

That is why people would sometimes (metaphorically) say

Not physically, but in purpose.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And I can't imagine a more inconsistent approach to scripture.

If "Son of God" means he's not God, then "Son of Man" means he's not man. That would be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of God" means he's God, then "Son of Man" means he's man, that would also be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of Man" means he's NOT man, while "Son of God" means he IS God, that would be inconsistent hermeneutics.

Likewise if "Son of Man" means he's man, while "Son of God" means he is NOT God (which is what both of you assert), we once again have inconsistent hermeneutics, and the only basis I can see for that is doctrine.

Trust the authors. If "Son of God" means Jesus is NOT God while "Son of Man" means he IS man, then the authors would have used a differing rather than consistent term to describe both. In other words, the term "SON OF..." would not have been applied to both God and man if it was the authors' intent to convey totally different meanings.

I respectfully submit these vastly differing interpretations for "Son of..." as it applies to man and God are not being provided by scripture but by an admittedly God fearing but misguided Arian community.

We must go where scripture leads us. Jesus is Man and Jesus is God, not part-God, not part-man, not just God nor just man, but 100% both, much like you can be a carpenter and husband at the same time. He is Son of Man and Son of God who can speak and is spoken of frequently from one perspective or the other within scripture.

The answer is simple.

He is Son of God and son of man symbolically. They are both designations rather than literal descriptions. He is greater than a man and less than God, like an intermediary or emissary.

Another problem is Jesus never says He is God directly, whereas He does say He is Son of God and son of man. As already mentioned, there are many scripture that indicate that Jesus can not possibly be God literally.

Its worth noting that son of man appears 2 - 3 times more than Son of God.

Son of God (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Son of man (Christianity) - Wikipedia

 

[MJFlores]

And I can't imagine a more inconsistent approach to scripture.

If "Son of God" means he's not God, then "Son of Man" means he's not man. That would be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of God" means he's God, then "Son of Man" means he's man, that would also be consistent hermeneutics.

If "Son of Man" means he's NOT man, while "Son of God" means he IS God, that would be inconsistent hermeneutics.

Likewise if "Son of Man" means he's man, while "Son of God" means he is NOT God (which is what both of you assert), we once again have inconsistent hermeneutics, and the only basis I can see for that is doctrine.

Trust the authors. If "Son of God" means Jesus is NOT God while "Son of Man" means he IS man, then the authors would have used a differing rather than consistent term to describe both. In other words, the term "SON OF..." would not have been applied to both God and man if it was the authors' intent to convey totally different meanings.

I respectfully submit these vastly differing interpretations for "Son of..." as it applies to man and God are not being provided by scripture but by an admittedly God fearing but misguided Arian community.

We must go where scripture leads us. Jesus is Man and Jesus is God, not part-God, not part-man, not just God nor just man, but 100% both, much like you can be a carpenter and husband at the same time. He is Son of Man and Son of God who can speak and is spoken of frequently from one perspective or the other within scripture.

OF is a preposition used to show possession,belonging, or origin of Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Ok we will go where the scripture leads us. For starters these are the following verses [there are more, but let us begin with these ones] - I don't need to interpret them, they could stand on their own.

These are the teachings of the apostles - after the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven:

Romans 5:15 New King James Version (NKJV)

But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Romans 5:17 New International Version (NIV)

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

1 Corinthians 15:47 New International Version (NIV)

The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

Hebrews 7:26-27 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Here is the High Priest we need. A man who is holy, faultless, unstained, beyond the very reach of sin and lifted to the very Heavens. There is no need for him, like the High Priest we know, to offer up sacrifice, first for our own sins and then for the people’s. He made one sacrifice, once for all, when he offered up himself.

Is my Lord Jesus an ordinary man? Of course not.
He is a very special man.

Acts 2:22 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

“My fellow Israelites, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you. He proved it by the miracles, wonders, and miraculous signs he did through Jesus. You all saw these things, so you know this is true.

Is it wrong to worship Jesus Christ? Of course not.
Even though he is a man and not God? Because God ordered everyone to worship the man, Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2:9-11 New Living Translation (NLT)

Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
and gave him the name above all other names,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

I worship my Lord Jesus Christ, who is a very special man for the glory of God. The apostles preached he is a man and not God. He is not an ordinary man because Jesus Christ is Lord. Where did his Lordship come from?

Acts 2:36 New Living Translation (NLT)

“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”

My Jesus could not be Lord unless God made him Lord
My Jesus could not be Messiah unless God made him Messiah
My Jesus is different from God
That is the teachings of the apostles and they are consistent with their teachings.

 

[Oeste]

The answer is simple.

He is Son of God and son of man symbolically. They are both designations rather than literal descriptions. He is greater than a man and less than God, like an intermediary or emissary.

If the Son of God means you are less than God then Son of Man means you’re less than man. It’s still an inconsistent exegesis.

Another problem is Jesus never says He is God directly, whereas He does say He is Son of God and son of man.

Likewise, the “Son of Abraham” is never said to be human directly but it’s a reasonable and logical inference. Since Abraham is human the “Son of Abraham” cannot possibly be more or less than man.

As already mentioned, there are many scripture that indicate that Jesus can not possibly be God literally.

Only if we follow an inconsistent exegesis, or start with the premise that Jesus cannot be God. The Son of Man is truly Man, and the Son of God is truly God.

 

[MJFlores]

If the Son of God means you are less than God then Son of Man means you’re less than man. It’s still an inconsistent exegesis.


Likewise, the “Son of Abraham” is never said to be human directly but it’s a reasonable and logical inference. Since Abraham is human the “Son of Abraham” cannot possibly be more or less than man.



Only if we follow an inconsistent exegesis, or start with the premise that Jesus cannot be God. The Son of Man is truly Man, and the Son of God is truly God.

Oh my golly.

OF is a preposition used to show possession,belonging, or origin of Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Laptop of Oeste

Wife of Oeste
Daughter of Oeste
Son of Oeste
Family of Oeste

Fact: Jesus never said he is God
Fact: Jesus never said he is truly Man and truly God
Fact: Jesus never said he is a demigod
Fact: Jesus never said he is 1/2 Man and 1/2 God

What did he say then?

John 8:40 New International Version (NIV)

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

He said he is a man
He told the truth
He heard from God

Why couldn't people believe my Lord Jesus Christ?
Could it be your Jesus is not my Lord Jesus?

 

[Oeste]

OF is a preposition used to show possession,belonging, or origin of Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Ok we will go where the scripture leads us.


For starters these are the following verses [there are more, but let us begin with these ones] - I don't need to interpret them, they could stand on their own.

These are the teachings of the apostles - after the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven:

Romans 5:15 New King James Version (NKJV)

But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Romans 5:17 New International Version (NIV)

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

1 Corinthians 15:47 New International Version (NIV)

The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

Hebrews 7:26-27 J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Here is the High Priest we need. A man who is holy, faultless, unstained, beyond the very reach of sin and lifted to the very Heavens. There is no need for him, like the High Priest we know, to offer up sacrifice, first for our own sins and then for the people’s. He made one sacrifice, once for all, when he offered up himself.

Is my Lord Jesus an ordinary man? Of course not.
He is a very special man.

Acts 2:22 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

“My fellow Israelites, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you. He proved it by the miracles, wonders, and miraculous signs he did through Jesus. You all saw these things, so you know this is true.

These are excellent verses MJFlores and I agree with them completely! Jesus was truly man but I think the question most Arians are stumped on is whether Jesus is God.

Is it wrong to worship Jesus Christ? Of course not.
Even though he is a man and not God? Because God ordered everyone to worship the man, Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2:9-11 New Living Translation (NLT)

Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
and gave him the name above all other names,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Another great verse MJFlores, but remember...we need to have a consistent exegesis, one that harmonizes with other scripture

Let's take a look at Isaiah 42:8:

I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.​

Here is my question to you:

Why would God give glory to Jesus when He specifically states He doesn't share His glory with another?

Acts 2:36 New Living Translation (NLT)

“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”

I remember the old saying: "NEVER put a period where God has placed a comma."

If Act 2:36 simply said "So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus" and ended it with a period, Arians would certainly have a better claim. In fact they would be citing this verse left and right. Unfortunately for Arians there is a COMMA which simply states God has made Jesus to be both Lord and Messiah, and not that Jesus was made.

To complete your exegesis you can harmonize this with Isaiah 43: 11:

"I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."​

There is no savior but God and no one we should worship but God.

Of course, there are obvious problems with making Jesus simply a man even if he an "extraordinary man": No man created the universe (mankind wasn't even around then) and according to scripture:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)​

So Jesus can't simply be man. He must be God also.

 

[Oeste]

Oh my golly.

OF is a preposition used to show possession,belonging, or origin of Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Laptop of Oeste
Wife of Oeste
Daughter of Oeste
Son of Oeste
Family of Oeste

I'm not sure what point you are trying to raise here.

Trinitarians don't claim Jesus is not of God. In fact, we freely admit he is the Son of God.

Likewise he is the Son of Man, so Trinitarians don't claim Jesus is not of man.

This doesn't mean he is apart from God nor does it mean he is apart from Man. It quite simply means he belongs to both.

Fact: Jesus never said he is God

Scripture tells us Jesus is God. Jesus is the Word and the Word was God (John 1:1). I'm not sure why you need Jesus to say this unless you dismiss John.

Fact: Jesus never said he is truly Man and truly God

I disagree. You've already made an excellent case that Jesus is man, you simply need to complete your exegesis with John 1:1.

Fact: Jesus never said he is a demigod

Agreed! However Adrian appears to believe otherwise and this is a dispute you can pursue with him.

Fact: Jesus never said he is 1/2 Man and 1/2 God

Also Agreed!

What did he say then?

John 8:40 New International Version (NIV)

As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

He said he is a man
He told the truth
He heard from God

Agreed! I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Trinitarian who wouldn't agree with you on this.

Why couldn't people believe my Lord Jesus Christ?

Jesus had to die so that we might be saved. Obviously some people did believe in the biblical Jesus otherwise his message would have been forgotten and there would be no Christianity today.

Could it be your Jesus is not my Lord Jesus?

For all I know, your personal Jesus could be someone named Jesus that lives in Miami, and for all you know my Jesus could be some guy that lives in LA.

However this is a religious debate forum, and for purposes of discussion let's assume we are both referring to the Jesus of scripture.

 

[MJFlores]

You've already made an excellent case that Jesus is man, you simply need to complete your exegesis with John 1:1.

John 1:1 New International Version (NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word was with God
Word was God
Therefore there are 2 Gods?
One is God
and the other was Word God?
Where is the other god you have?

Not mentioned?
Was not there at the beginning?
I thought you have 3, I see 2 on John 1:1

Now what is your exegesis?

 

[MJFlores]

These are excellent verses MJFlores and I agree with them completely! Jesus was truly man but I think the question most Arians are stumped on is whether Jesus is God.



Another great verse MJFlores, but remember...we need to have a consistent exegesis, one that harmonizes with other scripture

Let's take a look at Isaiah 42:8:

I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.​

Here is my question to you:

Why would God give glory to Jesus when He specifically states He doesn't share His glory with another?

Acts 2:36 New Living Translation (NLT)

“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”

I remember the old saying: "NEVER put a period where God has placed a comma."

If Act 2:36 simply said "So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus" and ended it with a period, Arians would certainly have a better claim. In fact they would be citing this verse left and right. Unfortunately for Arians there is a COMMA which simply states God has made Jesus to be both Lord and Messiah, and not that Jesus was made.

To complete your exegesis you can harmonize this with Isaiah 43: 11:

"I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."​

There is no savior but God and no one we should worship but God.

Of course, there are obvious problems with making Jesus simply a man even if he an "extraordinary man": No man created the universe (mankind wasn't even around then) and according to scripture:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)​

So Jesus can't simply be man. He must be God also.

You said: I remember the old saying: "NEVER put a period where God has placed a comma." If Act 2:36 simply said "So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus" and ended it with a period.

Therefore God has made this Jesus
Who is the creator? God
Who was created? Jesus
I have no problem with that - you just proved Jesus is created by God.

You said: To complete your exegesis you can harmonize this with Isaiah 43: 11:

"I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."
​

There are sometimes exceptions to the rule. True the Lord God is the savior, however if he made my Lord Jesus to his own right hand as Savior - the Lord Jesus becomes a Savior.

Acts 5:31 New International Version (NIV)

God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

These were spoken by apostle Peter at the time my Lord Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven.
God is the one who exalts and Jesus is the one who was elevated as Prince and Savior.
God is the one who placed Jesus up while Jesus was the one placed up
God is at the center while Jesus was exalted to God's right hand

If Jesus is at the right hand of God
it follows that Jesus is not God who is at the center

You said:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)​

So Jesus can't simply be man. He must be God also.

He must be God also? So you have 2 gods?
Wouldn't that go against what Christ said which is the most important one?

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29

What supplemental explanation is there for John 1:3?

Colossians 1:15-17New International Version (NIV)

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

John 1:1 Moffatt(i) 1
THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

Logos = the Word = the plan = hence the Son is the firstborn over all creation

God created all things through the Logos
God created all things the Logos
God created nothing with out the Logos
Hence the Son is the the firstborn over all creation

Isaiah 44:24 Good News Translation (GNT)

“I am the Lord, your savior;
I am the one who created you.
I am the Lord, the Creator of all things.
I alone stretched out the heavens;
when I made the earth, no one helped me.

Who is the Lord, Creator of all things in the Book of Isaiah?

Isaiah 64:8 New International Version (NIV)

Yet you, Lord, are our Father.
We are the clay, you are the potter;
we are all the work of your hand.

The Father [not the Son] alone stretched out the heavens; when he made the earth and no one helped him.

Malachi 2:10 New King James Version (NKJV)

Have we not all one Father?
Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously with one another
By profaning the covenant of the fathers?

Prophet Malachi did not record the Son but the Father as the one God.

 

[Oeste]

Word was with God
Word was God
Therefore there are 2 Gods?
One is God
and the other was Word God?
Where is the other god you have?

I did not write John 1:1. so if you can read it and come up with two Gods then your argument is with John and not with me.

Are you arguing John should have phrased it better?

You said: I remember the old saying: "NEVER put a period where God has placed a comma." If Act 2:36 simply said "So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus" and ended it with a period.

Therefore God has made this Jesus
Who is the creator? God
Who was created? Jesus
I have no problem with that - you just proved Jesus is created by God.

You may not have a problem with it but everyone else would. God didn't put a period after Jesus in Act 2:36. The full verse reads as follows:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."​

Accepting a period where God has placed a comma and then claiming this "proves" your doctrine is more of an appeal to ideology than a serious attempt at exegesis.

It's also a serious violation of scripture:

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Rev 22:19​

There are sometimes exceptions to the rule. True the Lord God is the savior, however if he made my Lord Jesus to his own right hand as Savior - the Lord Jesus becomes a Savior.

If proper exegesis allows us to make "exceptions to the rule" whenever necessary then scripture can say anything we want it to say. I would consider it a problem but I'm willing to entertain your thought. Simply show us the scripture that carves out Isaiah 43:11 as an exception, kindly elucidate the rule and the exception, and let us know under what circumstances we are to apply the rule and when we are to apply the exception.

Lacking this I think Isaiah 43:11 is pretty clear...there is no Savior for mankind outside the Almighty.

No exceptions.

 

[Oeste]

You said:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)
So Jesus can't simply be man. He must be God also.

He must be God also?

Absolutely. Earlier you were arguing Jesus was just a man, remember? This leads us to the untenable position that man created man for which I find no support in scripture.

So you have 2 gods?

No, but earlier you seemed to imply that John was suggesting as much at John 1:1.

Wouldn't that go against what Christ said which is the most important one?

Well if you believe in two Gods it certainly would. There is only one.

Let me ask you directly...did God create us or did a man?

The Father [not the Son] alone stretched out the heavens; when he made the earth and no one helped him.

Well I'm pretty sure the Jews reminded John of this the second he was inspired to write of Jesus at John 1:3:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made."

In other words, how do you explain Jesus being around to make all things that have been made when God, ALONE, created the heavens and earth with NO ONE to help Him?

Is this where we apply the exception you spoke of earlier?

Perhaps John really meant to write not "all things" but "all [other] things" like the Jehovah Witnesses claim?

 

[Daisies4me]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

(quote)

If you would like to read about the origin of the Trinity and other pertinent facts that many may not be aware of at this time, I invite you to peruse this webpage, and the articles featured therein.
I find it to be very informative, perhaps you may also.
Is the Trinity Doctrine in the Bible? | Bible Questions

It may answer a few questions, or spark more questions--- worth the read, imho.

 

[MJFlores]

Absolutely. Earlier you were arguing Jesus was just a man, remember? This leads us to the untenable position that man created man for which I find no support in scripture.

No, but earlier you seemed to imply that John was suggesting as much at John 1:1.

Well if you believe in two Gods it certainly would. There is only one.

Let me ask you directly...did God create us or did a man?

Well I'm pretty sure the Jews reminded John of this the second he was inspired to write of Jesus at John 1:3:

"Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made."

In other words, how do you explain Jesus being around to make all things that have been made when God, ALONE, created the heavens and earth with NO ONE to help Him?

Is this where we apply the exception you spoke of earlier?

Perhaps John really meant to write not "all things" but "all [other] things" like the Jehovah Witnesses claim?

I made a brewed coffee through the coffee maker, without the coffee maker I could not make a brewed coffee.

Logos is the plan of God about Christ

Even humans would buy baby things before we are born.

Baby clothes, baby cribs, etc are bought even before we are conceived. Some parents would even go further getting an educational plan or insurance plan for their children even before they are born. That idea that parents have to buy these things for us, is their Logos about us.

You don't say Lord Logos or Lord Word, do you?
On my part I would say Lord Jesus Christ.

When God said "Let there be Light" (he was thinking about his Son Jesus Christ - that is the Logos) and every things created in the universe which God created were created (with the plan about his Son Jesus Christ - hence nothing was created without him.)

Do you think everything were created for man? I do not think so, everything was created for him (my Lord Jesus Christ). That is why all things have been created through him and for him

Colossians 1:15-17 New International Version (NIV)

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[MJFlores]

I did not write John 1:1. so if you can read it and come up with two Gods then your argument is with John and not with me.

Are you arguing John should have phrased it better?



You may not have a problem with it but everyone else would. God didn't put a period after Jesus in Act 2:36. The full verse reads as follows:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."​

Accepting a period where God has placed a comma and then claiming this "proves" your doctrine is more of an appeal to ideology than a serious attempt at exegesis.

It's also a serious violation of scripture:

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Rev 22:19​

If proper exegesis allows us to make "exceptions to the rule" whenever necessary then scripture can say anything we want it to say. I would consider it a problem but I'm willing to entertain your thought. Simply show us the scripture that carves out Isaiah 43:11 as an exception, kindly elucidate the rule and the exception, and let us know under what circumstances we are to apply the rule and when we are to apply the exception.

Lacking this I think Isaiah 43:11 is pretty clear...there is no Savior for mankind outside the Almighty.

No exceptions.

There you go -

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

I hope you understood what you just disclosed -
Who made the same Jesus, Lord? It was God
Who made the same Jesus, Christ? It was God

I don't like my bible with the hath and the ye - old English.

Acts 2:36 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

“So, all the people of Israel should know this for certain: God has made Jesus to be Lord and Messiah. He is the man you nailed to the cross!”


Who made the same Jesus, Lord? It was God
Who made the same Jesus, Messiah? It was God
Who is Jesus? He is the MAN you nailed to the cross!

 

[Oeste]

(quote)

I find it to be very informative, perhaps you may also.
Is the Trinity Doctrine in the Bible? | Bible Questions

It may answer a few questions, or spark more questions--- worth the read, imho.

Unfortunately I can't agree.

The site immediately confuses the Trinity with Tritheism which is something no scholarly article would do.

 

[Oeste]

I made a brewed coffee through the coffee maker, without the coffee maker I could not make a brewed coffee.

So who, in your estimation, is the coffee, who is the coffee maker, and which...Jesus or the Father...made the whole thing ALONE, without the need of a coffee maker if He was the brew, or with the brew if He was the coffee maker?

 

[Oeste]

I made a brewed coffee through the coffee maker, without the coffee maker I could not make a brewed coffee.

So who, in your estimation, who is the coffee, who is the coffee maker, and which...Jesus or the Father...made the whole thing ALONE, without the need of a coffee maker if he was the brew, or with the brew if He was the coffee maker?

Baby clothes, baby cribs, etc are bought even before we are conceived. Some parents would even go further getting an educational plan or insurance plan for their children even before they are born. That idea that parents have to buy these things for us, is their Logos about us.

But I have never known baby clothes, cribs or an educational plan to create anything, much less die for us.

When God said "Let there be Light" (he was thinking about his Son Jesus Christ - that is the Logos) and every things created in the universe which God created were created (with the plan about his Son Jesus Christ - hence nothing was created without him.)

When God said "Let there be Light" there was light, not a plan about Jesus Christ.

Also, you keep saying "nothing was created without him" when we have scripture telling us God created everything ALONE. You really need to reconcile those two thoughts.

If I build a house but employ my brother to build it, I have not built the house alone. If I build a house but build it through my construction company, I have not built the house alone. If I have created the universe but do it through someone else, then I have not created the universe alone.

And if all I have is a plan or idea about the house or universe then I haven't built anything at all.

Isaiah 45:18 tells us God create the heavens alone, by Himself. If He used another human or God to do it then that's simply not true.

John tells us Jesus created "all things" and there is nothing made that hasn't been made by Jesus.

You really need to reconcile these two verses and I don't think making Jesus into a plan or idea quite does that.

BTW, I love the effort and commentary you've exhibited in your posts but for the reasons above can't quite reconcile them with scripture.

Do you think everything were created for man? I do not think so, everything was created for him (my Lord Jesus Christ). That is why all things have been created through him and for him

Colossians 1:15-17 New International Version (NIV)

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Again, great verses MJFlores, and they look great in isolation, but I'd really like to know how you reconcile them with John 1:3 and the Isaiah passages regarding creation.

Another point to consider: You asked and stated the following:

Do you think everything were created for man? I do not think so, everything was created for him (my Lord Jesus Christ). ​

If Jesus Christ is just a man, then everything created was for man. If Jesus Christ is "a god" (like the JW's preach) then everything was created for some other god.

IN BOTH INSTANCES the glory thus belongs to another distinct entity in direct violation of scripture (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11).

On the other hand, since Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, the glory remains right where it belongs...with God. There is no "handing over" of His glory to a separate entity and insertion of conflict into scripture.

This is what I mean by reconciling scripture as a whole, rather than looking at various verses as separate islands.

I think its this inability to reconcile scripture that leads many Arians to the same conclusion as Adrian:

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ.

Or to brazenly insert words like "other" into scripture (Col 1:16) in order to suit doctrine even though "other" is completely missing from any and all Greek manuscripts.