So what does the divinity of Jesus really mean, anyway?

[Brakelite]

Scripture. There is one God, the Father.

Agree. What we don't seem to agree on is the fact that the one God is actually a Father. Unless of course you think He wasn't a Father at some time.

 

[Berean]

Also, From scripture—Colossians 2:9 : "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form."

So, apparently this verse is open to more than one interpretation?

“For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Deity] bodily.”

This verse 9 is almost a repeat of Colossians 1:19. A theme of this epistle was to show the relationship of the Father and the Son. Trinitarians use this Scripture to say that the “Godhead” is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,” yet in both the RSV and the Diaglott, the word “Deity” is used and is correct.

Paul was harping on the theme of Jesus’ physical body prior to his crucifixion. In Jesus dwelled all the fullness of the Deity bodily. Colossians 1:22 stresses the same point: “In the body of his flesh through death.” Jesus came in the flesh, and he actually died. Two major theories counteracting these points existed in the early Church. Interestingly, Paul brought up both of them near the end of his ministry. When John’s ministry gained such prominence subsequently, he was right in the thick of these erroneous beliefs.

Jesus had the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Therefore, if all the fullness of the Deity was in Jesus, then all wisdom and understanding have to be considered in the light of Jesus and his instructions, and we do not have to go to outside sources. Since Jesus authorized his apostles to also teach and since he spoke favorably of the prophets, those are all that are needed—that is, the Bible. Messengers aid us in studying the Bible, but the apostles were the “sent out ones” of Jesus. He appointed the Twelve after praying to the Father in regard to their selection and approval.

In his Epistle to the Colossians, Paul was emphasizing the importance of Jesus’ role in his ministry of 3 1/2 years while here on earth in the flesh (Col. 1:19-22; 2:9). Paul talked of the risen Lord on other occasions, but his words here were particularly slanted to rebut the erroneous philosophy he anticipated would intrude into the class at Colosse. Some said that Jesus was only a messenger of truth and not the representative of God. They said he did not really suffer or die on the Cross, that his death was only a pretense. Proponents of this heresy looked down on those who were persecuted and/or poor temporally. Suffering for Christ and for righteousness’ sake was not seen as evidence of faithfulness. In an effort to combat this error, Paul had to state that all of his sufferings and persecutions were marks of his apostleship. Instead, the erring element regarded the sufferings as indications of disfavor. Principles of true Christianity were compromised, and eventually, many just blindly followed a leader.

 

[Jack]

Scripture. You reading into Scripture. Not the same thing. There is one God, the Father.

Didn't you say Jesus isn't the Savior?

 

[brightfame52]

It's scripture alright and you do not seem to explain or understand it beyond quoting Book, Chapter and verse.

For example in John 1:14a...what does 'became flesh' mean. I do not expect you to know it, and most don't either so you are great company.

Well give it your best shot then...

Its self explanatory Jn 1:1,14

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

14 And the Word[which was God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus is not God. John 1:1, 14 fulfills Deut 25:15-18.

Thats plain scripture testimony Jn 1:1,14

 

[brightfame52]

Scripture. You reading into Scripture. Not the same thing. There is one God, the Father.

Jn 1:1,14

 

[Wrangler]

Thats plain scripture testimony Jn 1:1,14

You don’t get it but are deliberately reading into Scripture a doctrine that is not there. Proper textual criticism is to interpret vague verses from the POV of explicit Scripture.

1. There is one God the Father.
2. Duet 15:15-18 reveals God will choose one among the people of Israel to put his words in that chosen persons mouth.
3. John 1:1, 14 affirm this one chosen among the people of Israel is Jesus.
4. This is made more clear as you read the rest of the chapter, particularly verses 21 and 45, affirming Jesus is the expected prophet Moses told us about.
5. If your take of John 1:1, 14 were correct, it would be included in his purpose statement for writing his Gospel at verse 20:31. It isn’t.

Trinitarians want John 1:1, 14 to displace the Unitarianism expressed by every Biblical writer, concisely stated there is one God, the Father.

There is no trinity verse in the Bible*, which explains why trinitarians must take out of context verses and read into it what the Unitarian Biblical writers never intended.


* To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

 

[Wrangler]

Didn't you say Jesus isn't the Savior?

Yea. Are you still denying agency?

While drowning in the ocean, the captain brings his ship to you and orders an ensign to pull you from the water. Who saved you from drowning, the captain or the ensign?

 

[Jack]

Yea. Are you still denying agency?

While drowning in the ocean, the captain brings his ship to you and orders an ensign to pull you from the water. Who saved you from drowning, the captain or the ensign?

My question to you was:

Didn't you say Jesus isn't the Savior?

 

[Wrangler]

Huh? Please explain.

See post #127 for full explanation.

 

[APAK]

I notice that you, along with your fellow Unitarians, deny the literal Sonship of Jesus. You have to of course in order to sustain your arguments. The lawyers had it right when they heard Jesus claiming to be the Son of God...they recognised He was claiming equality with God, making Himself God. Which of course is echoed in Philippians 2.

Remember, Lucifer led the original rebellion in heaven. He knew the truth. Ever since then, as Satan, he has confused truth with innumerable myths, fantasies, lies, and fairy tales. But there is a common thread running through each one. There is a evidence of previous truth as being the foundation of all the lies. Satan does not have an original idea in his whole mind. He's an expert in counterfeit and subterfuge, but nothing original. All the myths are merely offshoots from the original. So yes. In myths and fairy tales and legends are to found a variety of gods, some with children, some consisting of 3 equal but opposing powers, and all of them having characters that reflect their maker's own character. All of them exercise violence, murder, lies, theft, insurrection, slander, adultery, and war and conflict. So you reference to Greek mythology is a flat none issue, in fact, it would be a surprise otherwise.

So the word of God is God?

Don't we all, with the exception of unrepentant sinners, inherit eternal life from God? Who died?

Your use of sonship of Christ, viewing your posts, goes way too far to imply or state the reason why the Son of God is full-blown divine, the same as his Father. That is wrong. You have added this in as your theory or your opinion as your conclusion, as fact.

Sonship is a part of the family of God indeed.
It is acting like one's father, reflecting his character and values. This involves demonstrating the character of God in one's life and actions, as Jesus did. He is the first and genuine article as the son and we follow him as the adopted children; also with this so-called sonship and special and unique family relationship.

The word of God has always been his self-expression for his purposes and plans. God would not be God without it. So you could say the word is God as his core element of life. It demonstrates his life eternal. And he planted His word in his Son to be used through him, this word of God.

 

[APAK]

Its self explanatory Jn 1:1,14

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

14 And the Word[which was God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Like I already said, you cannot understand or sell what you claim to believe in. It is far from being self-explanatory, especially with a modern, alien 21st century mindset not even attempting to understanding the 1st century language and urban language, as part of the context.

 

[Wrangler]

I notice that you, along with your fellow Unitarians, deny the literal Sonship of Jesus.

We are all literally chosen sons of God, including Jesus.

Consider how Acts 17:31 defeats you literal biological sonship hypothesis by emphasizing that God selected (appointed) this man. Evidently, the Apostles thought Jesus was a regular man and not what you project.

 

[APAK]

We are all literally chosen sons of God, including Jesus.

Consider how Acts 17:31 defeats you literal biological sonship hypothesis by emphasizing that God selected (appointed) this man. Evidently, the Apostles thought Jesus was a regular man and not what you project.

Great point! He was a man truly selected before he was born, of and became flesh as anyone, with the added features of possessing a sinless internal human nature of heart and mind, from birth, with the presence of his Father, as Adam.

 

[Wrangler]

Great point! He was a man truly selected before he was born, of and became flesh as anyone, with the added features of possessing a sinless internal human nature of heart and mind, from birth, with the presence of his Father, as Adam.

The comparison and replacement to Adam reveals that Jesus must have the same nature as Adam. The dualistic trinitarians do not deny this; they only deny the Law of Mutual Exclusion of logic along with explicit Scripture to read contradictions into unitarian text.
P1. God is not a man.
P2. Jesus is a man.
C. Jesus is NOT God.

The obsession with John 1:1, 14 out of context to the whole chapter, particularly v 21 and 45 again affirm Jesus' nature as the expected prophet God chose among the people of Israel (a man) that Moses told us about is to invent a Messianic origin story contrary to Scripture's teaching.

While context is king, it is sad these idolators must forever take verses out of context of the unitarian text from which they come. Odd that Jesus did not teach us to pray to a trinitarian god. He must have not known who God is. It really is the natural implication, which reveals a schizophrenia on the topic for how can Jesus explain a God he does not know?
John 1:18 (REV) No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in a most intimate relationship with the Father, he has explained him.

 

[brightfame52]

You don’t get it but are deliberately reading into Scripture a doctrine that is not there. Proper textual criticism is to interpret vague verses from the POV of explicit Scripture.

1. There is one God the Father.
2. Duet 15:15-18 reveals God will choose one among the people of Israel to put his words in that chosen persons mouth.
3. John 1:1, 14 affirm this one chosen among the people of Israel is Jesus.
4. This is made more clear as you read the rest of the chapter, particularly verses 21 and 45, affirming Jesus is the expected prophet Moses told us about.
5. If your take of John 1:1, 14 were correct, it would be included in his purpose statement for writing his Gospel at verse 20:31. It isn’t.

Trinitarians want John 1:1, 14 to displace the Unitarianism expressed by every Biblical writer, concisely stated there is one God, the Father.

There is no trinity verse in the Bible*, which explains why trinitarians must take out of context verses and read into it what the Unitarian Biblical writers never intended.


* To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

Jn 1:1,14 is plain as day, Jesus the word is God

 

[brightfame52]

Like I already said, you cannot understand or sell what you claim to believe in. It is far from being self-explanatory, especially with a modern, alien 21st century mindset not even attempting to understanding the 1st century language and urban language, as part of the context.

Its self explanatory Jn 1:1,14

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

14 And the Word[which was God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Dont you ever tell me you believe the scripture ! You dont

 

[Wrangler]

Jn 1:1,14 is plain as day, Jesus the word is God

After what I wrote, explaining it all to you this is what you come back with? Wrong. Totally wrong. Jn 1:1,14 does not say this one little bit.

It's telling that you subordinate Jesus words to your eisegesis; the Father is the only true God. What does this say about the trinitarian god?

 

[Wrangler]

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

14 And the Word[which was God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:14 does not say God became flesh for a reason. That's not what happened.

 

[APAK]

Its self explanatory Jn 1:1,14

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

14 And the Word[which was God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Dont you ever tell me you believe the scripture ! You dont

I believe what the scripture says and means with much examination and unbiased. You however, believe what you have consciously or not inserted into it, that form a new exotic meaning for your model of belief.

Moving on...