Jesus is a human being but not the one true God

[kerwin]

The fact of the matter is God has only one meeting in English which is why it is used in the Bible. It may have a few different applications but it only has one meaning and that basically is a Supreme Being.

Dictionaries disagree with you as they claim multiple meanings and though I think I see how you are working to spin it you spin changes nothing as calling a rose by another name does not mean it is not a rose.

I made my case and you have not been able to answer it.

I do not believe those that hold to the idea believe what is written because their own words disagree with each other and they use large words that they do not understand in an attempt to cover there own ignorance. Scripture does not mention a literally hypostatic union. It is just a big phrase meant to conceal the obvious truth that two kinds cannot be one kind and no one supposed that false claim.

Scripture talks about two unions; that of spirit and that of faith. It is the union of Spirit that declares Jesus is a member as is God and even the Holy Spirit. Humanity and angels are also but they are body of the union and head is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In short God dwells in Jesus through his Spirit. That is the Trinity but it is part of the union of the Spirit. (Ephesians 4)

 

[StanJ]

Dictionaries disagree with you as they claim multiple meanings and though I think I see how you are working to spin it you spin changes nothing as calling a rose by another name does not mean it is not a rose.

I made my case and you have not been able to answer it.

I do not believe those that hold to the idea believe what is written because their own words disagree with each other and they use large words that they do not understand in an attempt to cover there own ignorance. Scripture does not mention a literally hypostatic union. It is just a big phrase meant to conceal the obvious truth that two kinds cannot be one kind and no one supposed that false claim.

Scripture talks about two unions; that of spirit and that of faith. It is the union of Spirit that declares Jesus is a member as is God and even the Holy Spirit. Humanity and angels are also but they are body of the union and head is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In short God dwells in Jesus through his Spirit. That is the Trinity but it is part of the union of the Spirit. (Ephesians 4)

And yet you seem unable to actually quote one dictionary the does so? There is definitely an agenda at play here but it's not mine.

 

[kerwin]

And yet you seem unable to actually quote one dictionary the does so? There is definitely an agenda at play here but it's not mine.

Your Spin started at absurd and is getting worse.

English Club definition for Dictionary

A dictionary is a list of words arranged alphabetically, and for each word you can see:

• 
  definition: the meaning or meanings of the word, often with example sentences
  
• 
  part of speech: whether the word is a noun, verb, adjective etc
  
• 
  correct spelling: the exact spelling and any possible alternatives
  
• 
  pronunciation: how to say the word
  
• 
  etymology: the origin of the word (did it come from Latin, for example?)
  

As you can see your choice of wording is wrong and hopefully you can humble yourself to admit it.

The bottom line is that "god" in English has several different meaning that are related. Jimi Herndrix is called a guitar as result being so superior to the ordinary in playing god. It is a meaning that may be derived from relationship of God to man in that God is skills but that is not usually attributed to him. Instead it sounds more like it is derived from the gods, as the later were claimed to be highly skilled in their particular field.

So, instead of claiming there is only one meaning which is untrue you could claim the meaning that is applied to humans is derived from the meaning for a supreme being worshiped by humanity.

 

[tom55]

Premises;

• Scripture states

1 Timothy 2:5-6New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

5 For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all.
This was the testimony[a] at the proper time.

Footnotes:

2:6 The testimony: to make sense of this overly concise phrase, many manuscripts supply “to which” (or “to whom”); two others add “was given.” The translation has supplied “this was.”

• Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35-36)
• A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.

Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since all these premises are true then Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

The following is a comment about fallen human nature but is off topic though related. Feel free to address it as well.

Assuming most people are rational human being it follows they should agree unless they suspend disbelief of the claim that Jesus is God. The suspension of disbelief is not faith but rather a form of denial. It is therefore an internal decision that rational arguments cannot address but rather requires the work of the Spirit.

Peter was Satan and scripture backs it up: But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since Jesus said it and it is in Scripture and Scripture is God breathed then my deductive reasoning that Peter was in fact Satan is 100% foolproof.

There are other parts of Scripture that say otherwise but there can be no disagreement with my argument unless my argument is flawed.

Scripture cannot be broken though it can be hard to understand.

Assuming most people are rational human beings they should agree with me and Scripture (God) unless they suspend their belief that Scripture is the word of God. <_<

 

[kerwin]

Peter was Satan and scripture backs it up: But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since Jesus said it and it is in Scripture and Scripture is God breathed then my deductive reasoning that Peter was in fact Satan is 100% foolproof.

There are other parts of Scripture that say otherwise but there can be no disagreement with my argument unless my argument is flawed.

Scripture cannot be broken though it can be hard to understand.

Assuming most people are rational human beings they should agree with me and Scripture (God) unless they suspend their belief that Scripture is the word of God. <_<

Please note I mis-wrote and I was using inductive not deductive reasoning in the initial post.

I do not even think that is a teaching of the RCC and it disregards many many points of Scripture.

The following is actually deductive reasoning because it based on the correct applications of precedents from Scripture under the belief they are reasonable to apply in that situation.

Scripture teaches is that demons (satans) dwell in those that are possesses and in the case of Peter it would be a brief period of dwelling as opposed to settling down and making the person its home as happens in the case of possession. This is accomplished by the satan(demon) dwelling in the person through a corrupt spirit so every time a person chooses to sin they invite a demon in to visit though sometimes it is done through lack of knowledge.

In Mark 5 we see Jesus taking to a demon possessed man but addressing the demon legion so there is a precedent for Jesus talking to a human being but addressing the demon that is currently dwelling in them just as there is scripture that speak of a being dwelling in a human being through a spirit. Given these precedents in is reasonable to conclude Jesus was simply addressing the demon that was visiting Peter and also letting know he had invited in an evil guest by giving into the temptation to speak words that were intended to sway Jesus away from sacrificing himself on the cross. Those words had the appearance of being righteous but in reality were designed to Jesus' fallen human nature in the hopes that Jesus would sin. Jesus overcame and both rebuked the demon and Peter at the same time.

In conclusion it was yet another temptation of Jesus by Satan but the later was being sneakier and so fooled Peter but not Jesus.

 

[tom55]

Please note I mis-wrote and I was using inductive not deductive reasoning in the initial post.

I do not even think that is a teaching of the RCC and it disregards many many points of Scripture.

The following is actually deductive reasoning because it based on the correct applications of precedents from Scripture under the belief they are reasonable to apply in that situation.

Scripture teaches is that demons (satans) dwell in those that are possesses and in the case of Peter it would be a brief period of dwelling as opposed to settling down and making the person its home as happens in the case of possession. This is accomplished by the satan(demon) dwelling in the person through a corrupt spirit so every time a person chooses to sin they invite a demon in to visit though sometimes it is done through lack of knowledge.

In Mark 5 we see Jesus taking to a demon possessed man but addressing the demon legion so there is a precedent for Jesus talking to a human being but addressing the demon that is currently dwelling in them just as there is scripture that speak of a being dwelling in a human being through a spirit. Given these precedents in is reasonable to conclude Jesus was simply addressing the demon that was visiting Peter and also letting know he had invited in an evil guest by giving into the temptation to speak words that were intended to sway Jesus away from sacrificing himself on the cross. Those words had the appearance of being righteous but in reality were designed to Jesus' fallen human nature in the hopes that Jesus would sin. Jesus overcame and both rebuked the demon and Peter at the same time.

In conclusion it was yet another temptation of Jesus by Satan but the later was being sneakier and so fooled Peter but not Jesus.

I have used your deductive reasoning to come to my conclusion that according to Scripture Peter is Satan. Deductive reasoning works like math. Either my reasoning is flawed due to a flawed premise or the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Otherwise it is both sound and valid just like the statement 1+1 = 2 is a sound and valid argument.

I have come to the conclusion that Peter was Satan just like you have done using deductive reasoning to determine that Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

I have dis-regarded many, many points of Scripture JUST LIKE YOU HAVE.

So why is MY deductive reasoning wrong but yours is right???

 

[Born_Again]

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.…

Kerwin would be correct. You have to read the whole passage. If you were cooking something and only read part of the instructions your food would come out all wrong and you couldn't eat it. Such is interpreting scripture. It was a temporary dwelling of satan. Why would Peter rebuke Christ? They believed all He said. So when doubt was injected into the equation, it came from Satan. If Peter was Satan, why would Christ build His church on him? Come on, use your head.

Side note, Kerwin... the reason why a lot of members stopped replying is because some of your theology is so off base, they aren't going to waste their time with you.

BA

 

[tom55]

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For the things but the things of men.”24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.…

Kerwin would be correct. You have to read the whole passage. If you were cooking something and only read part of the instructions your food would come out all wrong and you couldn't eat it. Such is interpreting scripture. It was a temporary dwelling of satan. Why would Peter rebuke Christ? They believed all He said. So when doubt was injected into the equation, it came from Satan. If Peter was Satan, why would Christ build His church on him? Come on, use your head.

Side note, Kerwin... the reason why a lot of members stopped replying is because some of your theology is so off base, they aren't going to waste their time with you.

BA

I am also pointing out how his "theology is so off base" by using his own words and his own deductive reasoning.

 

[Born_Again]

I am also pointing out how his "theology is so off base" by using his own words and his own deductive reasoning.

Yes, but you have some flawed theology as well, which is why i felt the need to point out the scripture in full. You guys are starting to drift from the OP. Bring it back around.

 

[tom55]

Yes, but you have some flawed theology as well, which is why i felt the need to point out the scripture in full. You guys are starting to drift from the OP. Bring it back around.

What have I written that is flawed?

 

[kerwin]

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For the things but the things of men.”24Then Jesus told His disciples, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.…

Kerwin would be correct. You have to read the whole passage. If you were cooking something and only read part of the instructions your food would come out all wrong and you couldn't eat it. Such is interpreting scripture. It was a temporary dwelling of satan. Why would Peter rebuke Christ? They believed all He said. So when doubt was injected into the equation, it came from Satan. If Peter was Satan, why would Christ build His church on him? Come on, use your head.

Side note, Kerwin... the reason why a lot of members stopped replying is because some of your theology is so off base, they aren't going to waste their time with you.

BA

Thank you for your support and thank you for the guidance about other members choices.

I just say what I hear from Scripture and it is their choice to disregard me or not.

 

[kerwin]

I have used your deductive reasoning to come to my conclusion that according to Scripture Peter is Satan. Deductive reasoning works like math. Either my reasoning is flawed due to a flawed premise or the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Otherwise it is both sound and valid just like the statement 1+1 = 2 is a sound and valid argument.

I have come to the conclusion that Peter was Satan just like you have done using deductive reasoning to determine that Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

I have dis-regarded many, many points of Scripture JUST LIKE YOU HAVE.

So why is MY deductive reasoning wrong but yours is right???

I map have said that "deductive reasoning is like math" but if so I misspoke as it is inductive reasoning that is like math.

Deductive reasoning is more about solving a mystery where you collect clues and follow where they go.

In the case of Jesus addressing Peter as satan I do just that.

You are using deductive reasoning and not inductive because you are building your case on too little information. If your point is that deductive reasoning can reach false conclusion then I agree; which I consider it the poor man's alternative to inductive reasoning.

I may have confused you by miscalling "inductive reasoning" deductive reasoning in the opening post. I am sorry for that.

 

[tom55]

I map have said that "deductive reasoning is like math" but if so I misspoke as it is inductive reasoning that is like math.

Deductive reasoning is more about solving a mystery where you collect clues and follow where they go.

In the case of Jesus addressing Peter as satan I do just that.

You are using deductive reasoning and not inductive because you are building your case on too little information. If your point is that deductive reasoning can reach false conclusion then I agree; which I consider it the poor man's alternative to inductive reasoning.

I may have confused you by miscalling "inductive reasoning" deductive reasoning in the opening post. I am sorry for that.

Inductive reasoning!

Deductive reasoning!

Either choice still leads you to being wrong. However, I realize you can not see that so I wish you well.

 

[kerwin]

Inductive reasoning!

Deductive reasoning!

Either choice still leads you to being wrong. However, I realize you can not see that so I wish you well.

You judge me wrong when it is you that are in error but human beings have been doing that for ages.

It is true that the Spirit is also required or even inductive reasoning can lead one astray.

Jesus used inductive reasoning when pointing out to the Sadducees that there was a resurrection from the dead. If you had been one of them would have stood by your traditions? Too many do.

 

[OzSpen]

Premises;

• Scripture states

1 Timothy 2:5-6New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

5 For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all.
This was the testimony[a] at the proper time.

Footnotes:

2:6 The testimony: to make sense of this overly concise phrase, many manuscripts supply “to which” (or “to whom”); two others add “was given.” The translation has supplied “this was.”

• Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35-36)
• A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.

Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since all these premises are true then Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

The following is a comment about fallen human nature but is off topic though related. Feel free to address it as well.

Assuming most people are rational human being it follows they should agree unless they suspend disbelief of the claim that Jesus is God. The suspension of disbelief is not faith but rather a form of denial. It is therefore an internal decision that rational arguments cannot address but rather requires the work of the Spirit.

kerwin,

Your title, 'Jesus is a human being but not the one true God', is your assertion. You have not demonstrated that from Scriptures. Surely you would go to the best source to determine if your statement is true? Why is it the best source? It is claimed to be breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV). To this point, your title is nothing more than your autonomous reason of an assertion.

Then you make the provocative statement, 'A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another'. Again, that is your autonomous, limited human reason speaking without the help of God's divine authority of Scripture.

Let's look to the biblical evidence:

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity:

• (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24);
• (2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17);
• (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13);
• (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8); Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18;
• (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8);
• (6) He does the actions of deity:

+ creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16);
+ holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3);
+ forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6);
+ raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28);
+ will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10),
+ of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15),
+ the nations (Ac 17:31),
+ Satan (Gen 3:15)
+ and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

There is ample biblical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus Christ, the Son, is regarded as God in Scripture. This evidence is contrary to your assertion that he was not God.

In addition, we know that he was fully human while on earth from the time he was conceived of the virgin Mary to the time of his Ascension.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, but you have some flawed theology as well, which is why i felt the need to point out the scripture in full. You guys are starting to drift from the OP. Bring it back around.

BA,

This is one diagram that was used as a 'mud map' of the Trinity in the early church. It is limited in its content but it does give a basic understanding that the Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Holy Spirit are each a part of the Godhead.

Oz

(image courtesy Christianity 201)​

 

[kerwin]

kerwin,

Your title, 'Jesus is a human being but not the one true God', is your assertion. You have not demonstrated that from Scriptures. Surely you would go to the best source to determine if your statement is true? Why is it the best source? It is claimed to be breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV). To this point, your title is nothing more than your autonomous reason of an assertion.

Then you make the provocative statement, 'A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another'. Again, that is your autonomous, limited human reason speaking without the help of God's divine authority of Scripture.

Let's look to the biblical evidence:

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity:

• (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24);
• (2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17);
• (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13);
• (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8); Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18;
• (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8);
• (6) He does the actions of deity:

+ creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16);
+ holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3);
+ forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6);
+ raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28);
+ will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10),
+ of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15),
+ the nations (Ac 17:31),
+ Satan (Gen 3:15)
+ and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

There is ample biblical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus Christ, the Son, is regarded as God in Scripture. This evidence is contrary to your assertion that he was not God.

In addition, we know that he was fully human while on earth from the time he was conceived of the virgin Mary to the time of his Ascension.

Oz

It is self evident if one believes in Scripture but indoctrination in an absurdity that you must suspend disbelief in order to except as the truth in the first place is stronger.

The bottom line is that Jesus is either human kind or the one true God; who is himself one of a kind.

Trinitarians confuse passages speaking of the unity of the Spirit, Ephesians 4:3 as well as other topics with evidence of the Trinity. Only one of those is written in Scripture and the other is known to have evolved into existence afterwards as the evolution of doctrine in the Catholic Churches. Personally I think that calling Jesus 100% human and 100% God is straight Roman Empire Emperor cult though there is other possible origins. It does fit in with the known evolution. The Spirit was added to the "Godhead" after the First Council of Nicea. I am curious whether Jewish Christians were even invited.

 

[OzSpen]

It is self evident if one believes in Scripture but indoctrination in an absurdity that you must suspend disbelief in order to except as the truth in the first place is stronger.

The bottom line is that Jesus is either human kind or the one true God; who is himself one of a kind.

Trinitarians confuse passages speaking of the unity of the Spirit, Ephesians 4:3 as well as other topics with evidence of the Trinity. Only one of those is written in Scripture and the other is known to have evolved into existence afterwards as the evolution of doctrine in the Catholic Churches. Personally I think that calling Jesus 100% human and 100% God is straight Roman Empire Emperor cult though there is other possible origins. It does fit in with the known evolution. The Spirit was added to the "Godhead" after the First Council of Nicea. I am curious whether Jewish Christians were even invited.

kerwin,

I provided biblical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus is God and you don't believe that. Your claim is that 'indoctrination in an absurdity that you must suspend disbelief in order to except (sic) as the truth in the first place is stronger'.

Could this be the pot calling the kettle black?

You have provided zero exegesis of the texts I presented to demonstrate that Jesus is and was God. ZERO! B)

Your theory is: 'The bottom line is that Jesus is either human kind or the one true God; who is himself one of a kind'. That's a theory and nothing more than that. I provided biblical evidence to support that view. To present the either/or Jesus is man/God is to present your ideology, not biblical theology.

As for Eph 4:3 (ESV), 'eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace', what is it talking about? Your plucking one verse out of context as a proof-text proves nothing without the context. Eph 4:2-3 (NLT) gives the context: '2 Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. 3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace'.

Verse 3 refers to how to live the Christian life in the body of believers with a humble, gently and patient approach in dealing with people's faults because of our love for the believers. This will be a means to keeping believers united in the Holy Spirit and being bound together in peace.

So Eph 4:3 (NLT), in context, is not a defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy. It is a defense of living in unity with other Christians.

I do wish you would learn to interpret Scripture in context without imposing your anti-Trinitarian views on us. My understanding is that CyB is an orthodox evangelical Christian forum. Your anti-Trinitarian views are unorthodox, as the Council of Nicea demonstrated and The Nicene Creed affirms.

Oz

 

[kerwin]

kerwin,

I provided biblical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus is God and you don't believe that. Your claim is that 'indoctrination in an absurdity that you must suspend disbelief in order to except (sic) as the truth in the first place is stronger'.

Could this be the pot calling the kettle black?

You have provided zero exegesis of the texts I presented to demonstrate that Jesus is and was God. ZERO! B)

Your theory is: 'The bottom line is that Jesus is either human kind or the one true God; who is himself one of a kind'. That's a theory and nothing more than that. I provided biblical evidence to support that view. To present the either/or Jesus is man/God is to present your ideology, not biblical theology.

As for Eph 4:3 (ESV), 'eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace', what is it talking about? Your plucking one verse out of context as a proof-text proves nothing without the context. Eph 4:2-3 (NLT) gives the context: '2 Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. 3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace'.

Verse 3 refers to how to live the Christian life in the body of believers with a humble, gently and patient approach in dealing with people's faults because of our love for the believers. This will be a means to keeping believers united in the Holy Spirit and being bound together in peace.

So Eph 4:3 (NLT), in context, is not a defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy. It is a defense of living in unity with other Christians.

I do wish you would learn to interpret Scripture in context without imposing your anti-Trinitarian views on us. My understanding is that CyB is an orthodox evangelical Christian forum. Your anti-Trinitarian views are unorthodox, as the Council of Nicea demonstrated and The Nicene Creed affirms.

Oz

I cannot convince you that your interpretation of the evidence because you are in denial. By claiming that evidence even exist you are implying that Jesus lied and Scripture can indeed be broken. If he lied then he clearly is not the Son of God.

The true teaching is not internally broken therefore Jesus is either fully the one true God or he is fully human.

You insist you have proof Jesus is God and I insist you misinterpret those Scriptures and there is no meeting in the middle. I know how I came to my view and it simply took guidance from God, seeking for an unbroken answer that would not be in conflict with other passages and constantly questioning my conclusions.

The truth is that Jesus that is accused of claiming to be God by his opponents and who has scripture which in its original context is speaking of God applied to him. He also claimed to be God in relationship to those human beings who Scripture calls gods.

John 10:30-40New English Translation (NET Bible)

30 The Father and I are one.”

31 The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. 32 Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”

34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not perform the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” 39 Then they attempted again to seize him, but he escaped their clutches.

The Father and I are one is another way of claiming that God are I are united and is clearly a reference to him being united with God in Spirit, just as it is literally written in the book of Ephesians. Many Trinitarians claim this is a reference to the Trintity that is not literally mentioned anywhere in Scripture. I instead go for the teaching that is literally written therein.

Then his opponents accuse him of claiming to be God; which I have pointed out a mistaken interpretation.

His answer was to continue with his own teaching while using there words to point out their error. He did this by using a inductive reasoned argument based on a Passage from Psalms where the Hebrews are gods because they received the word of God, namely the Law of Moses. He then compared himself to that group and said that compared to them he is the Son of God and then goes on to teach what the title means. So it is literally his accusers and not himself that say he claims to be God.

He did not even do it in relationship to that merely received the Law of Moses being called gods in Scripture but instead used his lesser title that is equivalent but makes it more clear he is not the one true God.

 

[kerwin]

kerwin,

I provided biblical evidence to demonstrate that Jesus is God and you don't believe that. Your claim is that 'indoctrination in an absurdity that you must suspend disbelief in order to except (sic) as the truth in the first place is stronger'.

Could this be the pot calling the kettle black?

You have provided zero exegesis of the texts I presented to demonstrate that Jesus is and was God. ZERO! B)

Your theory is: 'The bottom line is that Jesus is either human kind or the one true God; who is himself one of a kind'. That's a theory and nothing more than that. I provided biblical evidence to support that view. To present the either/or Jesus is man/God is to present your ideology, not biblical theology.

As for Eph 4:3 (ESV), 'eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace', what is it talking about? Your plucking one verse out of context as a proof-text proves nothing without the context. Eph 4:2-3 (NLT) gives the context: '2 Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. 3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace'.

Verse 3 refers to how to live the Christian life in the body of believers with a humble, gently and patient approach in dealing with people's faults because of our love for the believers. This will be a means to keeping believers united in the Holy Spirit and being bound together in peace.

So Eph 4:3 (NLT), in context, is not a defense of Trinitarian orthodoxy. It is a defense of living in unity with other Christians.

I do wish you would learn to interpret Scripture in context without imposing your anti-Trinitarian views on us. My understanding is that CyB is an orthodox evangelical Christian forum. Your anti-Trinitarian views are unorthodox, as the Council of Nicea demonstrated and The Nicene Creed affirms.

Oz

I am tired so I may not have done the best job of communicating. I also did not finish going over your post as I took an opportunity to air one of my grievances with my own kind.