Son of God

[electedbyHim]

It never is tiring understanding the deityy of Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches.

I have put this small study together for those who want to understand the title "Son of God".

Son of God

1 John 4:15-16a Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us.

God Lives in the Believer

4:15–16a​

15. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16a. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

Who are the people of the world Jesus has come to save? They are the ones who acknowledge the divine sonship of Jesus. In fact, only if the believer confesses that “Jesus is the Son of God” will God live in him and he in God. By themselves, these words are simple enough. But the phrase should not be seen as a mere confessional statement, even though it may have been equivalent to the statement Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3).

When we look at this phrase from a biblical point of view, we soon realize that John causes us to look at theological truth. The word Jesus embodies the entire history of Jesus from his birth to his ascension and session at the right hand of God. The term Son of God has its roots in Old Testament prophecies (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7) that were fulfilled when Jesus came (compare Heb. 1:5). The confession Jesus is the Son of God gives voice to his humanity and divinity. And it excludes everyone who denies that Jesus is the Son of God (2:23; 5:10, 12) as one who has no fellowship with God.

“And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.” Using the personal pronoun we, John includes all the readers of his epistle. By experience, he says, we have come to know the love of God and we have put our trust in it. The two verbs know and believe (rely) go together. Writes A. E. Brooke, “The growth of knowledge and the growth of faith act and react on each other.”30[1]

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 4:15​

ὅς ἐάν—“whoever, anyone.” The combination is followed by the verb ὁμολογήσῃ (he confesses) in the aorist subjunctive. The aorist signifies single action and the subjunctive uncertainty.

Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ—“Jesus is the Son of God.” “If the subject is a proper noun, … it may be anarthrous while the predicate has an article.”32[1]

Spurgeon - Let Christ be God to you, and you are saved. If, in every deed, and of a truth. You take him to be the Son of God, and consequently rest your eternal hopes on him, God dwells in you, and you dwell in God.

Jesus was the Son of God in an absolutely unique sense. “Jesus spoke of God as ‘the Father’, ‘my Father’, ‘my heavenly Father’, and ‘your heavenly Father’—fifty-one times in all.”34 Jesus indicated His awareness of the unique relationship (Matt. 11:27), as did the Father (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11). A son is of the same nature and essence as a father; in affirming Jesus as His Son, God the Father was saying that Jesus, His Son, is deity because He is of the same essence as the Father.[1]

In New Testament times, each Caesar considered himself to be a “son of God.” For example, coins depicted Augustus as the incarnate Zeus or “worship-worthy son of God,” and altars were erected in his honor. Augustus encouraged the cult as a unifying element in his diverse empire and as a type of patriotism. After his death temples were built in his honor, and the symbols of divinity were transferred to succeeding emperors. For decades, all new temples were made for the imperial cult.

Jesus’ identity as huios theou, which in Greek means “the Son of God,” startled His Roman world. Even more so, this title startled Jesus’ fellow Jews because they considered it blasphemous for any mortal to assume deity. At one point in the Gospel narrative (John 10), we are told that the Jewish leaders encircled Jesus and demanded that he give them a plain answer about His identity. He asserted that He had already told them—of course, He had not done so with plain words. After further prompting, He told them, “I and the Father are one.” This could mean that the Father and Son are one in nature and in position; that is, the two mutually indwell each other (John 10:38). Furthermore, Jesus’ statement could also mean that the Father and Son are numerically one. Whichever meaning the Lord intended to convey, the Jews understood that He was claiming deity for Himself, because they were about to stone Him for blasphemy. How could He, a mere man, make Himself God?

Jesus argued that it was not blasphemous to call Himself the “Son of God” when, in fact, He was the One the Father consecrated and sent into the world. Furthermore, on occasion God had called the judges of Israel “gods,” inasmuch as they were His representatives. These “gods” were the official representatives and commissioned agents of God. If God called them “gods,” why was it blasphemous for Jesus, the One consecrated by the Father and sent into the world, to say, “I am God’s Son.” The Jews could not argue against this because it stands written in “the Scriptures.” But Jesus was greater than those men who received messages from God, for He Himself was the very message from God to men. And whereas they were earthly men selected by God to represent Him, the Son of God came from heaven as the consecrated one, dedicated to do God’s will on earth.

Jesus was therefore justified in calling Himself the “Son of God,” equal with the Father. Thereafter, others called Him “the Son of God”—such as Peter (Matt. 16:16), Paul (Rom. 1:3–4) and John (1 John 5:10–12). Anyone who wants to become a Christian must do the same (1 John 5:10–12).[1]

32 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 149.

[1] Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 338.

[1] Eugene E. Carpenter and Philip W. Comfort, Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words: 200 Greek and 200 Hebrew Words Defined and Explained (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 395.

30 Brooke, Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, p. 122.

[1] Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 337.

---

34 34. Ibid., pp. 303–4.
[1]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (87). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

 

[Runningman]

It never is tiring understanding the deityy of Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches.

I have put this small study together for those who want to understand the title "Son of God".

Son of God

1 John 4:15-16a Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has in us.

God Lives in the Believer

4:15–16a​

15. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16a. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

Who are the people of the world Jesus has come to save? They are the ones who acknowledge the divine sonship of Jesus. In fact, only if the believer confesses that “Jesus is the Son of God” will God live in him and he in God. By themselves, these words are simple enough. But the phrase should not be seen as a mere confessional statement, even though it may have been equivalent to the statement Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3).

When we look at this phrase from a biblical point of view, we soon realize that John causes us to look at theological truth. The word Jesus embodies the entire history of Jesus from his birth to his ascension and session at the right hand of God. The term Son of God has its roots in Old Testament prophecies (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7) that were fulfilled when Jesus came (compare Heb. 1:5). The confession Jesus is the Son of God gives voice to his humanity and divinity. And it excludes everyone who denies that Jesus is the Son of God (2:23; 5:10, 12) as one who has no fellowship with God.

“And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.” Using the personal pronoun we, John includes all the readers of his epistle. By experience, he says, we have come to know the love of God and we have put our trust in it. The two verbs know and believe (rely) go together. Writes A. E. Brooke, “The growth of knowledge and the growth of faith act and react on each other.”30[1]

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 4:15​

ὅς ἐάν—“whoever, anyone.” The combination is followed by the verb ὁμολογήσῃ (he confesses) in the aorist subjunctive. The aorist signifies single action and the subjunctive uncertainty.

Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ—“Jesus is the Son of God.” “If the subject is a proper noun, … it may be anarthrous while the predicate has an article.”32[1]

Spurgeon - Let Christ be God to you, and you are saved. If, in every deed, and of a truth. You take him to be the Son of God, and consequently rest your eternal hopes on him, God dwells in you, and you dwell in God.

Jesus was the Son of God in an absolutely unique sense. “Jesus spoke of God as ‘the Father’, ‘my Father’, ‘my heavenly Father’, and ‘your heavenly Father’—fifty-one times in all.”34 Jesus indicated His awareness of the unique relationship (Matt. 11:27), as did the Father (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11). A son is of the same nature and essence as a father; in affirming Jesus as His Son, God the Father was saying that Jesus, His Son, is deity because He is of the same essence as the Father.[1]

In New Testament times, each Caesar considered himself to be a “son of God.” For example, coins depicted Augustus as the incarnate Zeus or “worship-worthy son of God,” and altars were erected in his honor. Augustus encouraged the cult as a unifying element in his diverse empire and as a type of patriotism. After his death temples were built in his honor, and the symbols of divinity were transferred to succeeding emperors. For decades, all new temples were made for the imperial cult.

Jesus’ identity as huios theou, which in Greek means “the Son of God,” startled His Roman world. Even more so, this title startled Jesus’ fellow Jews because they considered it blasphemous for any mortal to assume deity. At one point in the Gospel narrative (John 10), we are told that the Jewish leaders encircled Jesus and demanded that he give them a plain answer about His identity. He asserted that He had already told them—of course, He had not done so with plain words. After further prompting, He told them, “I and the Father are one.” This could mean that the Father and Son are one in nature and in position; that is, the two mutually indwell each other (John 10:38). Furthermore, Jesus’ statement could also mean that the Father and Son are numerically one. Whichever meaning the Lord intended to convey, the Jews understood that He was claiming deity for Himself, because they were about to stone Him for blasphemy. How could He, a mere man, make Himself God?

Jesus argued that it was not blasphemous to call Himself the “Son of God” when, in fact, He was the One the Father consecrated and sent into the world. Furthermore, on occasion God had called the judges of Israel “gods,” inasmuch as they were His representatives. These “gods” were the official representatives and commissioned agents of God. If God called them “gods,” why was it blasphemous for Jesus, the One consecrated by the Father and sent into the world, to say, “I am God’s Son.” The Jews could not argue against this because it stands written in “the Scriptures.” But Jesus was greater than those men who received messages from God, for He Himself was the very message from God to men. And whereas they were earthly men selected by God to represent Him, the Son of God came from heaven as the consecrated one, dedicated to do God’s will on earth.

Jesus was therefore justified in calling Himself the “Son of God,” equal with the Father. Thereafter, others called Him “the Son of God”—such as Peter (Matt. 16:16), Paul (Rom. 1:3–4) and John (1 John 5:10–12). Anyone who wants to become a Christian must do the same (1 John 5:10–12).[1]

32 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 149.

[1] Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 338.

[1] Eugene E. Carpenter and Philip W. Comfort, Holman Treasury of Key Bible Words: 200 Greek and 200 Hebrew Words Defined and Explained (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 395.

30 Brooke, Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, p. 122.

[1] Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, vol. 14, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 337.

---

34 34. Ibid., pp. 303–4.
[1]Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (87). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

Son of God indicates an association between two entities, typically one of belonging, not being the same entity. There are many Sons of God in scripture who are not God yet there isn't a "God the Son" in Scripture.

In order to maintain consistency, we must apply a uniform definition of the usage of the phrase Son of God to all it describes. None of the Sons of God are themselves God.

In the case of Jesus, he was born a human, died a human, was resurrected as a human, taken to heaven as a human, and by all accounts was continued to be spoken of as a human decades afterwards. He is the man who is the mediator between God and men, the man whom God ordained to judge the world along with the saints, the firstborn of the resurrection, and the brother to all who are sanctified and holy according to Scripture.

Furthermore, the Bible is quite clear that humans were created. Any sort of human, animal, statue, or any other created thing that one worships or deifies is considered idolatry according to Scripture. It's a pardonable sin and the regenerated will not be lead into idolatry by the Spirit of the Living God.

 

[for_his_glory]

1. God is Spirit, John 4:24, not flesh and blood and in the OT either spoke directly to the prophets or by angels and also various objects like a burning bush or an ass for example. Between the OT and NT God was silent towards Israel as when they returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity they came back as merchants and not shepherds as they were disobedient to God going after other gods, Book of Malachi.

2. Jesus being the very Spirit of God before the foundation of the world as He and the Father are one was prophesied by the Prophets in the OT and spoken of by John the Baptist in the NT as John being the forerunner of Christ calling all to repent. As foretold Christ did come as the word of God made flesh (skin, bone, blood) to be that light that shines in darkness. He came as redeemer Savior through Gods grace as Christ is our faith that all can repent of their sins and have eternal life with the Father to all who will believe in Him as Lord and Savior. John 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:13-21

3. After the sacrifice of Christ God raised Him from the grave and as He had to ascend back up to heaven the promise was that He would never leave us or forsake us as when He ascended He sent down the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) to indwell all who will believe in Christ and His finished works on the cross. In the OT Gods Spirit fell on them for a time and purpose under heaven. Now we are indwelled with that power and authority through Gods grace that the Holy Spirit now works in us and through us teaching all things God wants us to learn. All three are Spiritual and Spiritual awaking's in us to know the will of God and walk in His statures. John 16:7-15

Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit as all three coequal Gods Spirit.

Jesus being the right arm of God. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus is the word of God. John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Jesus is word, light and life that is God come in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Gods Holy Spirit has come to indwell us and teach us. John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that refer the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

 

[electedbyHim]

I. THE FULL DEITY OF CHRIST INCARNATE

A. He Possesses Attributes that Only God Has
1. Eternality. He claimed to exist from eternity past (John 8:58; 17:5).
2. Omnipresence. He claimed to be everywhere present (Matt. 18:20; 28:20).
3. Omniscience. He showed knowledge of things that could only be known if He were omniscient (Matt. 16:21; Luke 6:8; 11:17; John 4:29).
4. Omnipotence. He demonstrated and claimed the power of an omnipotent person (Matt. 28:18; Mark 5:11–15; John 11:38–44).

Other attributes of Deity are claimed for Him by others (e.g., immutability, Heb. 13:8), but these cited are claims He made for Himself.

B. He Performs Works that Only God Can Do

1. Forgiveness. He forgives sins eternally. Men may do that temporarily, but Christ grants eternal forgiveness (Mark 2:1–12).
2. Life. He gives spiritual life to whomever He wishes (John 5:21).
3. Resurrection. He will raise the dead (John 11:43).
4. Judgment. He will judge all people (John 5:22, 27).

Again, all of these examples are things He did or claims He made, not claims others made of Him.

C. He Was Given the Names and Titles of Deity

1. Son of God. Our Lord used this designation of Himself (though rarely, John 10:36), and He acknowledged its truthfulness when it was used by others of Him (Matt. 26:63–64). What does it mean? Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also carries the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the singers” meant of the order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son of God” when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity.

In Jewish usage the term Son of … did not generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature. Thus Bar Kokba, who led the Jewish revolt 135–132 b.c. in the reign of Hadrian, was called by a name which means “Son of the Star.” It was supposed that he took this name to identify himself as the very Star predicted in Numbers 24:17. The name “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36) doubtless means, “The Encourager.” “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17) probably means “Thunderous Men.” “Son of man,” especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament, essentially means “The Representative Man.” Thus for Christ to say, “I am the Son of God” (John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense.1

2. Lord and God. Jesus is called Yahweh in the New Testament, a clear indication of His full Deity (cf. Luke 1:76 with Mal. 3:1 and Rom. 10:13 with Joel 2:32). He is also called God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8), Lord (Matt. 22:43–45), and King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16).

D. He Claimed to Be God

Perhaps the strongest and clearest occasion of such a claim was at the Feast of Dedication when He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The neuter form of “one” rules out the meaning that He and the Father were one person. It means that they are in perfect unity in natures and actions, a fact that could only be true if He were as much Deity as the Father. The people who heard this claim understood it that way, for they immediately tried to stone Him for blasphemy because He made Himself out to be God (v. 33).

How can anyone say that Jesus of Nazareth Himself never claimed to be God, but rather that His followers made the claim for Him? Most of the passages cited above are from Christ’s own words. Therefore, one must face the only options: either His claims were true or He was a liar. And these claims are for full and complete Deity—nothing missing or removed during His life on earth.

[1]

---

1 J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 1:105.
[1]Ryrie, C. C. (1999). Basic theology : A popular systemic guide to understanding biblical truth (284). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

 

[Runningman]

I. THE FULL DEITY OF CHRIST INCARNATE

A. He Possesses Attributes that Only God Has
1. Eternality. He claimed to exist from eternity past (John 8:58; 17:5).
2. Omnipresence. He claimed to be everywhere present (Matt. 18:20; 28:20).
3. Omniscience. He showed knowledge of things that could only be known if He were omniscient (Matt. 16:21; Luke 6:8; 11:17; John 4:29).
4. Omnipotence. He demonstrated and claimed the power of an omnipotent person (Matt. 28:18; Mark 5:11–15; John 11:38–44).

Other attributes of Deity are claimed for Him by others (e.g., immutability, Heb. 13:8), but these cited are claims He made for Himself.

B. He Performs Works that Only God Can Do

1. Forgiveness. He forgives sins eternally. Men may do that temporarily, but Christ grants eternal forgiveness (Mark 2:1–12).
2. Life. He gives spiritual life to whomever He wishes (John 5:21).
3. Resurrection. He will raise the dead (John 11:43).
4. Judgment. He will judge all people (John 5:22, 27).

Again, all of these examples are things He did or claims He made, not claims others made of Him.

C. He Was Given the Names and Titles of Deity

1. Son of God. Our Lord used this designation of Himself (though rarely, John 10:36), and He acknowledged its truthfulness when it was used by others of Him (Matt. 26:63–64). What does it mean? Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also carries the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the singers” meant of the order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son of God” when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity.

In Jewish usage the term Son of … did not generally imply any subordination, but rather equality and identity of nature. Thus Bar Kokba, who led the Jewish revolt 135–132 b.c. in the reign of Hadrian, was called by a name which means “Son of the Star.” It was supposed that he took this name to identify himself as the very Star predicted in Numbers 24:17. The name “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36) doubtless means, “The Encourager.” “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17) probably means “Thunderous Men.” “Son of man,” especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly in the New Testament, essentially means “The Representative Man.” Thus for Christ to say, “I am the Son of God” (John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense.1

2. Lord and God. Jesus is called Yahweh in the New Testament, a clear indication of His full Deity (cf. Luke 1:76 with Mal. 3:1 and Rom. 10:13 with Joel 2:32). He is also called God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8), Lord (Matt. 22:43–45), and King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16).

D. He Claimed to Be God

Perhaps the strongest and clearest occasion of such a claim was at the Feast of Dedication when He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The neuter form of “one” rules out the meaning that He and the Father were one person. It means that they are in perfect unity in natures and actions, a fact that could only be true if He were as much Deity as the Father. The people who heard this claim understood it that way, for they immediately tried to stone Him for blasphemy because He made Himself out to be God (v. 33).

How can anyone say that Jesus of Nazareth Himself never claimed to be God, but rather that His followers made the claim for Him? Most of the passages cited above are from Christ’s own words. Therefore, one must face the only options: either His claims were true or He was a liar. And these claims are for full and complete Deity—nothing missing or removed during His life on earth.

[1]

---

1 J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 1:105.
[1]Ryrie, C. C. (1999). Basic theology : A popular systemic guide to understanding biblical truth (284). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

Jesus doesn't possess all of the qualities of God. For starters, Jesus never directly claimed to be God, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. There are numerous examples where, in practice sand example, Jesus demonstrated that he lacks divine qualities.

In Matthew 13:58, Jesus' ability to do miracles was dependant on his audiences' lack of faith. Meaning, factors external to Jesus' power effected his ability to do the miracles. In other words, Jesus' miracle power was conditional which would be a limitation on his power and a lack of omnipotence.

In Matthew 24:36, Jesus directly stated that he doesn't know something that only God knows. In Mark 11:12,13, Jesus went to get figs from a tree, but upon inspecting the tree found none because it wasn't fig season yet. That demonstrates Jesus had to discover this through experience, like all other people, rather than relying on inherent knowledge of all things.

Mark 1:45 in a clear example of Jesus not being omnipresent.

Furthermore, there are many names, titles, and characteristics that God and Jesus don't share. Some of them being eternality, invisibility, fallibility, immortality, etc.

In Luke 2:52, Jesus had to grow in wisdom, stature, and favor with God which is an example of him needing to build repertoire and undergo development like all others. He was tempted in all ways as a normal person is in Hebrews 4:15, but but cannot be tempted with evil according to James 1:13.

Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God, yet the invisible God is said to be the only God in 1 Timothy 1:17. Since Jesus isn't invisible then he isn't the only God and is therefore not God at all.

1 Timothy 6:16 says that God alone possesses immortality, yet the gospels are plain about Jesus dying. Someone who is inherently immortal cannot die, therefore Jesus isn't the immortal God.

The words eternal are never used to describe Jesus in Scripture nor are there any examples of him saying and doing anything in the Old Testament to suggest there was a literal eternal pre-existence.

In Acts 4:24-27, Jesus isn't described as the Creator, but rather the Creators servant.

There are no clear examples of Jesus being prayed to in the Bible or answering prayers. There are no examples of Jesus being worshipped as God. There are no examples of Jesus being the Creator. There are no examples of anyone clearly saying or believing otherwise. There are no examples of Jesus pre-existing his birth.

There are no examples of something Jesus did that others who were empowered by God could not also do. According to Matthew 9:6-8, Jesus didn't inherently have authority to forgive sin, but rather received it from God along with the other "men." Jesus walked on water, Peter walked on water (Matthew 14:22-29). Jesus the light of the world, and the disciples the light of the world (Matthew 5:14).

I didn't even go into all of the names and titles Jesus and God don't share. This is just the short list.

 

[electedbyHim]

Jesus doesn't possess all of the qualities of God. For starters, Jesus never directly claimed to be God, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. There are numerous examples where, in practice sand example, Jesus demonstrated that he lacks divine qualities.

In Matthew 13:58, Jesus' ability to do miracles was dependant on his audiences' lack of faith. Meaning, factors external to Jesus' power effected his ability to do the miracles. In other words, Jesus' miracle power was conditional which would be a limitation on his power and a lack of omnipotence.

In Matthew 24:36, Jesus directly stated that he doesn't know something that only God knows. In Mark 11:12,13, Jesus went to get figs from a tree, but upon inspecting the tree found none because it wasn't fig season yet. That demonstrates Jesus had to discover this through experience, like all other people, rather than relying on inherent knowledge of all things.

Mark 1:45 in a clear example of Jesus not being omnipresent.

Furthermore, there are many names, titles, and characteristics that God and Jesus don't share. Some of them being eternality, invisibility, fallibility, immortality, etc.

In Luke 2:52, Jesus had to grow in wisdom, stature, and favor with God which is an example of him needing to build repertoire and undergo development like all others. He was tempted in all ways as a normal person is in Hebrews 4:15, but but cannot be tempted with evil according to James 1:13.

Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the image of the invisible God, yet the invisible God is said to be the only God in 1 Timothy 1:17. Since Jesus isn't invisible then he isn't the only God and is therefore not God at all.

1 Timothy 6:16 says that God alone possesses immortality, yet the gospels are plain about Jesus dying. Someone who is inherently immortal cannot die, therefore Jesus isn't the immortal God.

The words eternal are never used to describe Jesus in Scripture nor are there any examples of him saying and doing anything in the Old Testament to suggest there was a literal eternal pre-existence.

In Acts 4:24-27, Jesus isn't described as the Creator, but rather the Creators servant.

There are no clear examples of Jesus being prayed to in the Bible or answering prayers. There are no examples of Jesus being worshipped as God. There are no examples of Jesus being the Creator. There are no examples of anyone clearly saying or believing otherwise. There are no examples of Jesus pre-existing his birth.

There are no examples of something Jesus did that others who were empowered by God could not also do. According to Matthew 9:6-8, Jesus didn't inherently have authority to forgive sin, but rather received it from God along with the other "men." Jesus walked on water, Peter walked on water (Matthew 14:22-29). Jesus the light of the world, and the disciples the light of the world (Matthew 5:14).

I didn't even go into all of the names and titles Jesus and God don't share. This is just the short list.

This is what John talked about and the anti-christs who deny Christs Deity.

1Jn 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared. From this we know that it is the last hour.
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us.
1Jn 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
1Jn 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Test the Spirits
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
1Jn 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.
1Jn 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world hears them.
1Jn 4:6 We are from God. The one who knows God hears us; the one who is not from God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

 

[Runningman]

This is what John talked about and the anti-christs who deny Christs Deity.

1Jn 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared. From this we know that it is the last hour.
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us.
1Jn 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
1Jn 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Test the Spirits
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
1Jn 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.
1Jn 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world hears them.
1Jn 4:6 We are from God. The one who knows God hears us; the one who is not from God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

These verses are about those who deny Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Christ, but he isn’t God according to Scripture.

 

[electedbyHim]

These verses are about those who deny Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Christ, but he isn’t God according to Scripture.

They are about the person and Deity of Christ.

You may deny all you like, but the Bbile says you come to believers as the anti-christ to sew discord.

The world also denies Jesus Christ is God.

1 Johnn 4:5-6 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world hears them. We are from God. The one who knows God hears us; the one who is not from God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

You cannot fool anyone who is established in the written word.

Take your doctrines of demons elsewhere.

I have fallen into sin by participating in your evil deeds.

2 John 1:7-11 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. See to yourselves, that you do not lose what we accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

 

[Free]

Son of God indicates an association between two entities, typically one of belonging, not being the same entity.

Distinct, yes, not a single person here denies that, but they a son is always the same nature as his father. Always. Yet, that is something you deny.

There are many Sons of God in scripture who are not God

Not true. Be much more careful with language, as this is one of the consistent problems with anti-Trinitarians. With such a complex topic we must be precise.

There is one and only one Son of God, who, like his Father, is truly God. There are humans in the OT who are said to be sons of God because they were his representatives and judges over his people. In the NT, all believers are said to be children of God by adoption.

yet there isn't a "God the Son" in Scripture.

It's a logical conclusion based on Scripture.

In order to maintain consistency, we must apply a uniform definition of the usage of the phrase Son of God to all it describes. None of the Sons of God are themselves God.

This is poor hermeneutics. Jesus is unique in how he is the Son of God. That is among the clearest teachings in the NT. Therefore, you cannot apply the same definition to him that you apply to all others. I've already shown how the usage is different between people, so that also nullifies such an idea. Stick to what Scripture states in a given context.

In the case of Jesus, he was born a human, died a human, was resurrected as a human, taken to heaven as a human, and by all accounts was continued to be spoken of as a human decades afterwards. He is the man who is the mediator between God and men, the man whom God ordained to judge the world along with the saints, the firstborn of the resurrection, and the brother to all who are sanctified and holy according to Scripture.

And, yet, Jesus clearly taught that he preexisted, which is why John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews taught the same.

Furthermore, the Bible is quite clear that humans were created. Any sort of human, animal, statue, or any other created thing that one worships or deifies is considered idolatry according to Scripture. It's a pardonable sin and the regenerated will not be lead into idolatry by the Spirit of the Living God.

And, yet, we see many instances of the worship of Jesus:

Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
(It is also very important to also note here the use of "the Son of God" in this context.)

Why would they worship him?

Psa 89:8 O LORD God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O LORD, with your faithfulness all around you?
Psa 89:9 You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.

Psa 107:28 Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress.
Psa 107:29 He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.
Psa 107:30 Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.

Similarly, in Luke:

Luk 8:24 And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm.
Luk 8:25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?”

They worshiped Jesus and called him the Son of God because he commanded the wind and waves, showing his deity.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
…
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Luk 24:50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
Joh 9:36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you."
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
(Note that the context begins with Jesus miraculously healing of a man born blind and then asking the man if he believed "in the Son of Man.)

So, while I agree that the believers will not be led into idolatry by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit leads us to worship Jesus, because he is God in human flesh and worthy of our worship. The disciples certainly thought so, so I don't know why we should think any different.

 

[Runningman]

They are about the person and Deity of Christ.

You may deny all you like, but the Bbile says you come to believers as the anti-christ to sew discord.

The world also denies Jesus Christ is God.

1 Johnn 4:5-6 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world hears them. We are from God. The one who knows God hears us; the one who is not from God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

You cannot fool anyone who is established in the written word.

Take your doctrines of demons elsewhere.

I have fallen into sin by participating in your evil deeds.

2 John 1:7-11 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. See to yourselves, that you do not lose what we accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Nothing there mentions the deity of Jesus because he isn't God. Yes, Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, but nothing there calls Jesus God. I believe you are reading into it. I think if I ask you the right question(s) it'll help you discover on your own that this is the case. In the verses you quoted, where does it say exactly that Jesus is deity?

 

[Runningman]

Distinct, yes, not a single person here denies that, but they a son is always the same nature as his father. Always. Yet, that is something you deny.

Why do you say that? You think there aren't any exceptions to this?

Not true. Be much more careful with language, as this is one of the consistent problems with anti-Trinitarians. With such a complex topic we must be precise.

There is one and only one Son of God, who, like his Father, is truly God. There are humans in the OT who are said to be sons of God because they were his representatives and judges over his people. In the NT, all believers are said to be children of God by adoption.

I said there are many Sons of God who are not God. Your answer is "Not true." Are you saying that all of God's Sons are also God?

It's a logical conclusion based on Scripture.

There is pretty good evidence that this is not a logical conclusion. As I pointed out in a previous reply, there are a lot of things and Jesus does not have in common with God. Logically, that would mean Jesus isn't God.

This is poor hermeneutics. Jesus is unique in how he is the Son of God. That is among the clearest teachings in the NT. Therefore, you cannot apply the same definition to him that you apply to all others. I've already shown how the usage is different between people, so that also nullifies such an idea. Stick to what Scripture states in a given context.

These hermeneutics are correct. If one wants to use the term Son of God then they can't use subjective reasoning to say it means deity when universally it doesn't refer to deity.

And, yet, Jesus clearly taught that he preexisted, which is why John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews taught the same.

Jesus didn't ever say he pre-existed.

And, yet, we see many instances of the worship of Jesus:

Mat 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
(It is also very important to also note here the use of "the Son of God" in this context.)

Why would they worship him?

Psa 89:8 O LORD God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O LORD, with your faithfulness all around you?
Psa 89:9 You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.

Psa 107:28 Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress.
Psa 107:29 He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.
Psa 107:30 Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.

Similarly, in Luke:

Luk 8:24 And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm.
Luk 8:25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?”

They worshiped Jesus and called him the Son of God because he commanded the wind and waves, showing his deity.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mat 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
…
Mat 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

Luk 24:50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
Joh 9:36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
Joh 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you."
Joh 9:38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
(Note that the context begins with Jesus miraculously healing of a man born blind and then asking the man if he believed "in the Son of Man.)

Worshipping Jesus "as God" would be idolatry. None of those verse say Jesus was worshipped as God. Worship in the Bible doesn't necessarily equate to deifying someone. There are many examples of people worshipping those of high standing or status in Scripture and the idea wasn't supposed to be that whoever is worshipped becomes God.

So, while I agree that the believers will not be led into idolatry by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit leads us to worship Jesus, because he is God in human flesh and worthy of our worship. The disciples certainly thought so, so I don't know why we should think any different.

That is your opinion, not a revelation given to Jesus or the disciples in Scripture. Where the Bible is silent, let's be silent.

 

[Free]

Why do you say that?

Say what, exactly? I said a couple of different things.

You think there aren't any exceptions to this?

Can you provide just one exception where a son is a completely different nature than his father?

I said there are many Sons of God who are not God. Your answer is "Not true." Are you saying that all of God's Sons are also God?

I know exactly what you said, but you aren’t paying attention to the details I provided. As I stated, precision is necessary, especially with such a complex topic. There is one and only one Son of God and absolutely not “many Sons of God.” The unique Son of God is eternally begotten or generated, not created, being truly God because he has the same nature as the Father.

Everyone else referred to with that title, as I pointed out, are sons or children of God. To capitalize the “s” here is to blur the distinction between those adopted and the uniquely begotten Son. This can clearly lead to falsely equating those people with Jesus.

There is pretty good evidence that this is not a logical conclusion. As I pointed out in a previous reply, there are a lot of things and Jesus does not have in common with God. Logically, that would mean Jesus isn't God.

No, your argument is not sound. I have repeatedly pointed out to you the importance of Phil 2:6-8, and some of the specific statements. Again, you have overlooked details.

I have also asked you previously how we should expect a human who is God in the flesh to act and what we should expect them to say. It rather goes without saying that God in human flesh is going to be automatically limited, and that’s apart from any other self-imposed limitations.

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Self-imposed limitation "by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Here are the points I have given several times before, which, iirc, were pretty much left unaddressed:

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

Of course, the whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

These hermeneutics are correct. If one wants to use the term Son of God then they can't use subjective reasoning to say it means deity when universally it doesn't refer to deity.

No, the hermeneutic is not correct. Words themselves can have different meanings depending on context, never mind phrases. I truly don't know how one could not recognize that "Son of God" has a different and more significant meaning than "sons of God," apart from being willfully ignorant. It’s one of those very obvious things in Scripture.

With Jesus, we can clearly see that his claim to be the Son of God was equivalent to being God.

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.
Mat 26:66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” (ESV)

Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” (ESV)

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Why do you think the first words out of the converted Saul's mouth, proclaimed in the synagogues no less, as written in Acts 9:20 are, "He is the Son of God"?

 

[Free]

Jesus didn't ever say he pre-existed.

He said it several times and I have provided most of those passages before:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
...
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Importantly:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's first look at something John said:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. Looking at the context of what Isaiah was talking about:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

I have posted that several times to every anti-Trinitarian here and none has even attempted to refute it. Why do you think that is? Why have you not addressed it, despite having posted it to you at least twice?

This is why John the Baptist stated:

Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’
(Yet, John the Baptist was born first.)

And what John additionally stated, apart from his prologue, which fully affirms the Son's deity and preexistence:

Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

(All ESV.)

Worshipping Jesus "as God" would be idolatry.

Not if he actually was also truly God.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

None of those verse say Jesus was worshipped as God. Worship in the Bible doesn't necessarily equate to deifying someone.

Except in these cases it does. Once again you're ignoring the details of the contexts.

There are many examples of people worshipping those of high standing or status in Scripture and the idea wasn't supposed to be that whoever is worshipped becomes God.

Of course.

That is your opinion, not a revelation given to Jesus or the disciples in Scripture.

It isn't my opinion; it's been the teaching of the Church for almost 2,000 years. It is absolutely central to true Christian belief.

Where the Bible is silent, let's be silent.

I agree, but one also shouldn't make it silent where it isn't.

 

[Runningman]

Say what, exactly? I said a couple of different things.

I mean, why did you say "a son is always the same nature as his father?"

Can you provide just one exception where a son is a completely different nature than his father?

Are you referring to the qualities and character of a person? If yes, then you need to be more specific. Everyone and their father can share similar natures and have different ways and preferences of expressing it. Yet fundamentally, there is a human nature which all people possess, including Jesus, yet God doesn't. For example, Jesus was also vulnerable to temptation yet God isn't. Using myself as an example, I had a different nature from my father as well.

I know exactly what you said, but you aren’t paying attention to the details I provided. As I stated, precision is necessary, especially with such a complex topic. There is one and only one Son of God and absolutely not “many Sons of God.” The unique Son of God is eternally begotten or generated, not created, being truly God because he has the same nature as the Father.

There are many Sons of God and they are all unique in their own way. The capitalization is subjective and a translational preference.

Everyone else referred to with that title, as I pointed out, are sons or children of God. To capitalize the “s” here is to blur the distinction between those adopted and the uniquely begotten Son. This can clearly lead to falsely equating those people with Jesus.

Seems your point is "This is what I prefer" which is fine, but that's difficult to justify based of Biblical grammar. There is no requirement to capitalize or not capitalize Son based of Greek grammar rules.

No, your argument is not sound. I have repeatedly pointed out to you the importance of Phil 2:6-8, and some of the specific statements. Again, you have overlooked details.

I have also asked you previously how we should expect a human who is God in the flesh to act and what we should expect them to say. It rather goes without saying that God in human flesh is going to be automatically limited, and that’s apart from any other self-imposed limitations.

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Self-imposed limitation "by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Here are the points I have given several times before, which, iirc, were pretty much left unaddressed:

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

Of course, the whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

Yes my argument is sound. You are taking the angle that if Jesus has something in common with God then that means he is God, yet you and I also have something in common with God and we are not God.

Now your argument seems to be based around the language in Philippians 2:6-8, but it doesn't support your premise. For example, if we actually begin with verse 5, the context is Paul telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus Christ. After that, in verses 6-8, you are saying saying these mean Jesus is God in the flesh. If that were so, then Paul would be telling the Philippians to also believe that they are God in the flesh.

One of your main points seems to center around the "form" of God, yet the word form refers to the form, shape, and/or outward appearance. This same word is what is used of what is visible to the eyes. It's used in the Septuagint in Job 4:15,16, Isaiah 44:13, and Daniel 3:19 to refer to what people were looking at with their eyes such as a statue for example.

In regards to Jesus, this would not mean that God looks like a human, but rather the observable behavior of Jesus. This is the same thing that Paul was telling the Philippians that they too can have.

Furthermore, many versions and translations of Philippians 2:6 say Jesus "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..." which is the opposite of what someone who is God would do. It means that Jesus is not equal with God. Keep in mind the audience who Paul is telling to have the same mind as Jesus Christ. Paul was not telling the Philippians to think they are God, are equal to God, etc.

Phil. 2:7,8 says Jesus is a servant and a man. There you go. With these verses Paul actually destroys the doctrine of the hypostatic union by directly saying Jesus is a servant and a man. Paul had nothing else to add. That would suggest there is a union of God and man here.

 

[Runningman]

No, the hermeneutic is not correct. Words themselves can have different meanings depending on context, never mind phrases. I truly don't know how one could not recognize that "Son of God" has a different and more significant meaning than "sons of God," apart from being willfully ignorant. It’s one of those very obvious things in Scripture.

Yes the hermeneutic is correct. The other Sons of God are not God then there is no reason to say that Jesus being the Son of God is somehow God. Jesus is brother to the other Sons of God, not God the Son, or their God, etc.

With Jesus, we can clearly see that his claim to be the Son of God was equivalent to being God.

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy.
Mat 26:66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” (ESV)

No, Jesus was not claiming to be God or an equivalent to God. He quoted Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64 and in context of Daniel 7:13, the Son of man is not God in this verse because the Son of man came to the Ancient of Days which would be God. Jesus' words are actually a very strong argument against his deity.

Daniel 7
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” (ESV)

That was a lie on the part of the religious establishment. There is not a law in Judaism that suggests that being the Son of God is considered a violation of the law of Moses or blasphemy. They were manipulating Pilate who apparently didn't even both researching the matter. They had already colluded beforehand that they were going to find reason to kill Jesus.

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

That was their accusation, not a factual statement. For example, John 5:18 also says that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath which, if true, would mean Jesus was sinning. John is narrating what the accusations against him were, not what was actually true about Jesus.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Why do you think the first words out of the converted Saul's mouth, proclaimed in the synagogues no less, as written in Acts 9:20 are, "He is the Son of God"?

Contrary to their accusations, Jesus did not agree nor claim to be God, but rather the Son of God. That's a rebuttal and a denial of being God.

John 10
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

 

[Runningman]

He said it several times and I have provided most of those passages before:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
...
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Importantly:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

I will have to reduce some of your original reply to make mine fit the character count.

None of those say Jesus "pre-existed" and you provided too many examples for me to concisely and briefly explain what they mean in their context. Beginning with the first example, Jesus said he is the "Son of man" from heaven. Son of man, in Scripture, refers to humans. In other words, Jesus said he is a human from heaven. So we know based on the evidence from Scripture that human beings didn't pre-exist in heaven. Jesus was referring to him being a man sent by God according to God's divine plan and purpose as all of scripture states.

You also made a point about God stating He will not share His glory with another yet there are different senses of glory. It isn't to say that people cannot receive glory from God or that there can't be mutual glory that God and people can share together, but God's exclusive glory is His and His alone and He will not share it with anyone, including Jesus.

To demonstrate how this is the case, in John 17:22, if what you said were so, then God's exclusive glory ended up being given to the disciples which would contradict your presentation of God's glory being something He will not share with others. This is because there are different senses of God's exclusive glory, mutual glory that cane be shared with God, and glory received by people from God.

John 17
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Not if he actually was also truly God.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

But this passage means Jesus is not God again. For starters, beginning with Hebrews 1:2, speaking through the Son is not something God did until these last days and yet the world was not created in these last days. There is the context clue that something is not right about this verse.

If you will look at the latter part that says, "through whom he also created the world" not only does it say Jesus is not the Creator, but rather the intermediary of channel through whom a creation occurred.

Furthermore, the word the publishers say is "world" isn't a word used in Scripture to refer to the material universe, but rather an age or cycle of time. Aiōnas is used over 100 times in the New Testament to refer to time, not the physical world. So I would argue that the version you provided for Hebrews 1:2 is actually a bad translation because it gives the wrong idea. Hebrews 1:2 is essentially about God creating the church age through Jesus "in these last days."

Hebrews 1:3 is in context of the church because Jesus is Lord of the Church.

Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus was "made" or "became" better than the angels which would indicate superiority isn't a quality that Jesus inherently had in the first place.

Hebrews 1:5 says "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" Since this says there was a day in which God became the Son's Father, this would also mean that Jesus was not eternally the Son of God. Jesus was created.

Hebrews 1:6 only refers to the Son being worshipped when he was brought into the world as the Son, but not worshipped as God. It doesn't refer to deifying Jesus.

Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6 where in the context the one being called "God" is not actually God, but a human king with a queen. Psalm 45:6 is most likely referring to Solomon and Solomon wasn't being called God in Psalm 45:6, but rather a god. This also isn't a Messianic prophecy. The author of Hebrews transferred and applied Psalm 45:6 to Jesus so it doesn't follow from the context that he is actually calling Jesus God, but rather a god. This is evident by verse 9 which says he was anointed by God, conditionally, because he "loved righteousness, and hated iniquity."

Therefore, Hebrews 1:10 refers to YHWH, who is a reference to the previously mentioned God who anointed the Son in verse 9. That means Jesus isn't God or the Creator, but rather YHWH is God and the Creator.

Except in these cases it does. Once again you're ignoring the details of the contexts.

Where does it say he was worshipped as God?

It isn't my opinion; it's been the teaching of the Church for almost 2,000 years. It is absolutely central to true Christian belief.

In Christian belief, worshipping humans is idolatry for almost 2,000 years. Do you agree with that?

I agree, but one also shouldn't make it silent where it isn't.

The bible is silent about Jesus being "God in human flesh." What you are presenting is a theological argument, not something the Bible directly says.

 

[Free]

I mean, why did you say "a son is always the same nature as his father?"

Because it's true. Always.

Are you referring to the qualities and character of a person? If yes, then you need to be more specific. Everyone and their father can share similar natures and have different ways and preferences of expressing it.

I am referring to that which makes God, God and that which makes humans, human.

Yet fundamentally, there is a human nature which all people possess, including Jesus, yet God doesn't. For example, Jesus was also vulnerable to temptation yet God isn't.

Of course, but that in no way whatsoever proves that Jesus isn't also truly God. It would be fallacious to argue that it does.

Using myself as an example, I had a different nature from my father as well.

It is safe to assume that your father was human, correct?

There are many Sons of God and they are all unique in their own way. The capitalization is subjective and a translational preference.

You are purposely equivocating on the meaning of "Son of God" to sow confusion in what the Bible says. You need to stop doing this. It's the same reason why translators most often capitalize "God," but sometimes don't--it delineates the one true God from other things that are false gods. The title "Son of God" is used only of Christ in Scripture and "son of God" once, in the genealogy of Christ in regards to Adam. When applied to more than one person it is "sons of God." This delineates the one and only begotten Son of God from all others.

There is one and only one, unique Son of God. Again, this among the most clear teachings in the NT.

Seems your point is "This is what I prefer" which is fine, but that's difficult to justify based of Biblical grammar. There is no requirement to capitalize or not capitalize Son based of Greek grammar rules.

Of course not, but it's called context and understanding the clear difference in meaning when it refers to Christ as opposed to others. This is such a basic concept, it's hard to believe you're disputing it. Of course, it does no favours to your position, so it's understandable why you would want the difference to go away.

Yes my argument is sound.

No, your argument is not sound; it is a poor argument, philosophically speaking. You are completely ignoring the significance of the language that Paul uses. I suspect that is why you once again ignored the points I made about the passage.

You are taking the angle that if Jesus has something in common with God then that means he is God, yet you and I also have something in common with God and we are not God.

I am not "taking the angle that if Jesus has something in common with God then that means he is God," I am taking the biblical evidence that the Son has the very nature of God, that which makes God, God, which can only mean that the Son is also truly God. That is, the eternal Son has everything in common with God, being of and sharing the same essence.

Now your argument seems to be based around the language in Philippians 2:6-8, but it doesn't support your premise. For example, if we actually begin with verse 5, the context is Paul telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus Christ.

I've already stated the purpose of this passage--to show the humility of Christ, which Paul wants these believers to emulate, to keep in mind in their dealings with each other.

Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, (ESV)

There is no greater example of humility that could ever be conceived than that of the Son of God, being God in nature, coming to live as a human and humbling himself to die for our salvation.

After that, in verses 6-8, you are saying saying these mean Jesus is God in the flesh. If that were so, then Paul would be telling the Philippians to also believe that they are God in the flesh.

Not at all. You would do well to read some books on proper biblical interpretation or, better yet, take some formal courses. Understanding context and how it works is fundamental to understanding anything one reads.

Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

In context, what Paul says could never mean that he is "telling the Philippians to also believe that they are God in the flesh." That is nonsense. Paul is clearly appealing to their "mind," their way of thinking about others. They are to, "in humility count others more significant than [themselves]." Paul is appealing to the example of Christ's humility, not to his being; that wouldn't even make sense.

Besides, that argument cuts both ways. I could just as easily argue that because Paul is saying that Jesus is human, that therefore the Philippians are to believe they are human. That, too, is nonsense because it goes without saying. Paul's entire point is to have the mind of Christ in regards to his supreme example of humility.

 

[Free]

One of your main points seems to center around the "form" of God, yet the word form refers to the form, shape, and/or outward appearance. This same word is what is used of what is visible to the eyes. It's used in the Septuagint in Job 4:15,16, Isaiah 44:13, and Daniel 3:19 to refer to what people were looking at with their eyes such as a statue for example.

I've explained all this before. Morphe, "form," has to do with the essence. He was in essence, in nature, God, just as in verse 7 he became a servant truly and inwardly. It is schēma, "fashion," in verse 8 that is the visual outward appearance. It means that his outward appearance to humans hid his essence, who he really was. However, we know that he wasn't a human in appearance only, that was an error John taught against (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); he was truly and fully human. Therefore, how much more then is he truly and fully God. This is Paul's point with the use of homoiōmati, "likeness" in verse 8. It means that he was truly human, yet there was more to him than just human nature. Notice that he did not appear in the likeness of God. His full self was not fully expressed.

"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.

As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.

This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).

Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:

"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.

Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.

The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)

Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)

In regards to Jesus, this would not mean that God looks like a human, but rather the observable behavior of Jesus. This is the same thing that Paul was telling the Philippians that they too can have.

It is the essential nature of Jesus as the Son.

Furthermore, many versions and translations of Philippians 2:6 say Jesus "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..." which is the opposite of what someone who is God would do. It means that Jesus is not equal with God.

No. It means that as God in nature--"in the form of God"--the Son "did not count equality with God a thing" to be forcibly retained or held on to. That is, he chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends. That is precisely why Paul says Jesus "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man." He could not cease to be God but put self-imposed limits on displaying his glory.

Keep in mind the audience who Paul is telling to have the same mind as Jesus Christ. Paul was not telling the Philippians to think they are God, are equal to God, etc.

Of course. That isn't even remotely close to anything to do with what I have stated. It has nothing to do with the passage stating that the Son is God in nature.

Phil. 2:7,8 says Jesus is a servant and a man. There you go. With these verses Paul actually destroys the doctrine of the hypostatic union by directly saying Jesus is a servant and a man. Paul had nothing else to add. That would suggest there is a union of God and man here.

And, there you go, completely ignoring the context of verse 6. It's not surprising you believe as you do, when you ignore proper biblical interpretation, one of the most basic principles of which is context. I even game some points of significance regarding what is said and you literally ignored them all, just as you have done previously. You prefer your own opinion over Scripture, which is to your detriment.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Nothing there mentions the deity of Jesus because he isn't God. Yes, Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, but nothing there calls Jesus God. I believe you are reading into it. I think if I ask you the right question(s) it'll help you discover on your own that this is the case. In the verses you quoted, where does it say exactly that Jesus is deity?

Most people have an incorrect definition of God. God can be/and is One without being the typical what we think GOD. God is setup like a family. Father almighty, Jesus the literal Son dispersing the Father's inheritance to the children of God. This is why it is so important to honor your parents. A majority in today's world do not comprehend this and that is why there is a disconnect from the truth of God. When you are a child of God you have authority to live in this world and do the will of our Father in heaven. It is not blasphemy to call yourself a child of God and to say you are in the family of God with Jesus Christ your Lord because he is the firstborn over creation and he guides us on the path to our Father in heaven. I'm trying to bridge the gap between those who make Jesus equal to the Father and you. I'm in between, and I am correct in this matter.

 

[for_his_glory]

These verses are about those who deny Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Christ, but he isn’t God according to Scripture.

That's only because you are Unitarian and not taught from the Bible we use as Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity.

Our Christian Bible that most of us use as a child of God states the below.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8