THE GREAT I AM

[Free]

Give me a massage.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

At a minimum, since we know that sons are always the same nature as their fathers--it cannot be otherwise--then that reflects God's revelation of Father and Son. If the Son is not the same nature as the Father, then the whole thing breaks down and God's use of Father and Son communicates nothing to us.

Much repetition. The One God, God the Father was the father of the human Jesus in the begettal/birth process and Mary as his mother. Jesus had human nature Hebrew 2:14, Romans 8:3. If you press the father / son concept, every father exists before the existence of their son. The father begets the son. How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.

If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient.

Jesus was a specially prepared individual, a special birth and a special education, with the result he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, Luke 2:40,52. Isaac was a special birth and one aspect of his failure was with Esau and Jacob. All the faithful of old in one way or another pointed forward to the completeness revealed in Jesus. Trinitarians whitewash over all this detail and replace this with the idea that Jesus MUST be God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

Much repetition. The One God, God the Father was the father of the human Jesus in the begettal/birth process and Mary as his mother. Jesus had human nature Hebrew 2:14, Romans 8:3.

All you anti-Trinitarians are great at providing verses which prove Jesus was human, which Trinitarians fully agree with, but why do you not take Heb 1:2 and 1:10-12 into account? Why skip to 2:14, as though chapter 1 doesn't have anything to say on the matter, when it clearly does?

And why ignore the wording of Romans 8:3? "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (ESV). Notice that God sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." That strongly implies his Son preexisted in some other form, such as in the form of God, which Paul writes in Phil 2:6.

If you press the father / son concept, every father exists before the existence of their son. The father begets the son. How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.

It is not contradictory; it's complicated and ultimately incomprehensible, but not contradictory. A son is always of the same nature as his father. So the Son is the same nature as the Father, which is deity. That necessarily means that the Son has always existed or wouldn't be of the same nature. The NT reaffirms this repeatedly, speaking not only of the preexistence of the Son, but of eternal, absolute existence.

Jesus was a specially prepared individual, a special birth and a special education, with the result he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, Luke 2:40,52. Isaac was a special birth and one aspect of his failure was with Esau and Jacob. All the faithful of old in one way or another pointed forward to the completeness revealed in Jesus. Trinitarians whitewash over all this detail and replace this with the idea that Jesus MUST be God.

We aren't the ones "whitewashing." Your response doesn't actually address what you quoted, which was: "If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient."

"Specially prepared" or not, "special birth" or "special education" or not, if he was merely human, his sacrifice is wholly insufficient, and it leaves the door open for others to be the same. None of those things which point "to the completeness revealed in Jesus," shows that Jesus cannot be God, nor is it whitewashed over by Trinitarians. The fact of the matter is, the doctrine of the Trinity exists because of what the Bible reveals about the nature of Christ, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I have given ample evidence, much of which, particularly the strongest arguments, has either been ignored or dismissed with the wave of a hand. The only counterarguments and passages of Scripture used to "rebut" anything are those which speak to the humanity of Jesus, which, again, no Trinitarian would deny. Those are used to completely override the plain meaning of other passages which clearly teach the deity of Jesus. It isn't that "Jesus MUST be God," it's that there is plenty of biblical evidence that he is also truly God. That evidence just can't be ignored or reinterpreted because there is plenty of biblical evidence that he is truly human.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

All you anti-Trinitarians are great at providing verses which prove Jesus was human, which Trinitarians fully agree with, but why do you not take Heb 1:2 and 1:10-12 into account? Why skip to 2:14, as though chapter 1 doesn't have anything to say on the matter, when it clearly does?

I am not interested in answering all the supposed "Trinitarian" verses otherwise this thread will become a full Trinitarian vs Biblical Unitarian thread. I was interested in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 and I suggest that I have presented my understanding of these adequately.

And why ignore the wording of Romans 8:3? "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (ESV). Notice that God sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." That strongly implies his Son preexisted in some other form, such as in the form of God, which Paul writes in Phil 2:6.

Did John the Baptist preexist?
John 1:6 (KJV): There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

It is not contradictory; it's complicated and ultimately incomprehensible, but not contradictory. A son is always of the same nature as his father. So the Son is the same nature as the Father, which is deity.

I suggest that the Trinitarian concept is both incomprehensible and contradictory. The Father/Son relationship was between a Deity and a human.

Your response doesn't actually address what you quoted, which was: "If he was a mere human, not only would that mean he was an insufficient sacrifice, but it it would imply that others, too, could live completely sinless lives, which also shows why his sacrifice would have been insufficient."

No other human has been so prepared to be the Saviour. It was a Divine work, and no man can strive to achieve ALL that was accomplished in Jesus. He alone was sinless, and thus the only one in and through whom the sentence of death could be reversed and thus share this with others, ALL of whom are in need of this blessing.
Romans 6:16–23 (KJV): 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Runningman]

How Trinitarians try to cover this aspect is one of their many unfathomable mysteries, or in other words contradictory impossibilities.

Or the invention of new words and concepts. One I have seen used a lot is "eternally begotten."

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Runningman,

Or the invention of new words and concepts. One I have seen used a lot is "eternally begotten."

Yes, that is a difficult one to analyse. I tried to suggest a few explanations, but decided that it is only an attempt to explain the NT term "only begotten". The simple explanation of "only begotten" is that God the Father is the father of the human Jesus Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Runningman]

Greetings Runningman,

Yes, that is a difficult one to analyse. I tried to suggest a few explanations, but decided that it is only an attempt to explain the NT term "only begotten". The simple explanation of "only begotten" is that God the Father is the father of the human Jesus Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

That's true, but then sometimes I see people raise distinction between the Son of Man (human Jesus) and the Son of God (non-human Jesus) where the Father is the father of the Son of God, but since the Son of God was never actually born then he isn't really a son and the Father isn't really a father. Thus he was "eternally begotten." That's how I think the logic works. In that way they can still say he's begotten yet also eternal which is self-contradictory anyway. It sounds religious, but ultimately it's false.