Why Are Non-Trinitarian Believers Sometimes Labeled as Non-Christian?

[Runningman]

The belief that Jesus is God is foundational to the Christian faith because it directly relates to the core of the gospel—the incarnation and the work of the cross. The claim that believing Jesus is God is a "theological argument" misunderstands the significance of this truth in the context of salvation. The Bible consistently presents the identity of Jesus as essential to understanding the nature of salvation itself.

In John 8:24, Jesus declares, "For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." This verse is a clear statement that belief in the true identity of Jesus is not optional but necessary for salvation. Jesus is not just a prophet, teacher, or a good man; He is God in flesh. The incarnation is the very act of God taking on human nature to accomplish what humanity could not—reconciliation with God. Colossians 2:9 further affirms, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Understanding and believing in the true nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man is integral to grasping the depth of what was accomplished on the cross.

The incarnation—the Father tabernacling Himself in flesh—was necessary because the problem of sin required a perfect, sinless sacrifice Hebrews 10:4-5, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he (The Self Expressive Eternal Word which is God) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body (God in Flesh with His greatest revealed name Jesus Christ) hast thou prepared me." (emphasis mine.) No human could meet this requirement; therefore, God Himself became our Redeemer Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”

The cross was not merely an act of a human dying for humanity, but it was the act of God Himself taking on our sins, providing the only means of atonement. The sacrifice was divine because it had to be sufficient to satisfy the justice of a holy God, and it was human because it had to be representative of humanity. Jesus, being fully God and fully man, fulfilled both aspects perfectly 2 Corinthians 5:19, “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” To deny that Jesus is God undermines the entire reason for the cross. It diminishes the significance of the sacrifice, reducing it to the death of a mere human rather than the ultimate, redemptive act of God. The cross is the central event of Christian faith because it is where God’s love and justice meet. If Jesus were not God, the cross would be insufficient for salvation, as no created being could bridge the infinite gap between sinful humanity and a holy God.

John 14:6 states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This exclusive claim underscores that access to the Father is only through Jesus, who is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). To know Jesus is to know the Father (John 14:9), and to believe in Him as God is to accept the fullness of God’s revelation and plan for salvation.

Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not merely a theological opinion; it is a foundational truth that is woven into the very fabric of the gospel message. The incarnation and the cross lose their true meaning if Jesus is not recognized as God. Salvation, therefore, hinges on the recognition of Jesus as the God who came to save us, and to deny this is to reject the Salvation of the gospel.

According to Scripture, if you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah then you will die in your sins. Jesus never directly stated he is God, he even went as far as to deny being God (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, John 8:40, John 10:36, etc), but he did directly say that he is the Christ or Messiah (John 4:25, 26) so belief in Jesus being the Messiah is foundational to Christian salvation, not that he is God.

What you seem to be saying is that you believe Jesus is God. In that case, he would actually not be the Messiah. The prophecies concerning Jesus throughout the Old Testament all indicate that the Messiah would be a mortal man that would die for the sins of the people, according to Isaiah 53 for example. He was a suffering servant of God who's very soul was made a sin offering. In other words, not only did Jesus' body die, but also his soul as well. Isaiah chapter 53 describes a mortal man who died both body and soul and in this way Jesus was the Messiah. His death was required in order to complete this task. There is not even a hint of God incarnating as a man or that the Messiah would be God in Scripture.

So if Jesus is God then that would mean Jesus didn't die because God is described as the one who is alone immortal (1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16) and Jesus is not immortal (Revelation 1:18.) Since being immortal means that someone cannot die, then that would mean Jesus did not actually die for the sins of the people. Therefore in Trinitarianism you don't have a sin sacrifice and you are theoretically still in your sins.

According to Scripture, Jesus was a man delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, into the hands of sinners, to be slain according to Acts 2:23. Jesus also bore the peoples' sins in his body and even though he knew no sin, God made him be sin for us in a legal sense (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24) and that if confess Jesus is your Lord and believe in your heart God the Father raised him from the dead you will be saved (Romans 10:9.) Paul also stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 that belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is required to be saved.

The result of your doctrines are not Christian; sins being applied to God is not a Christian doctrine, God dying isn't a Christian doctrine, God bleeding isn't a Christian doctrine, etc.

The danger of saying "Jesus is God," though it sounds religious, is it ultimately strips the gospel of its power, and calls into question the authenticity and genuineness of Jesus' death because God cannot die. This is why a false gospel cannot save you. In Trinitarianism there is no sin sacrifice.

 

[electedbyHim]

According to Scripture, if you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah then you will die in your sins. Jesus never directly stated he is God

If “Messiah” (Christ) does not express deity, then John is saying that belief in a mere human being gives eternal life (20:30–31) and the non-divine Messiah anticipated by the Jews can take away sin, offer eternal life of his own initiative, and act as eternal judge. How can a mere human possibly accomplish these divine acts?

Without any clear evidence for the use of “Son of God” as a messianic term, it would appear unusual for the first-century Jews to have understood John’s use of “Son of God” as meaning human “Messiah.” The Jews were expecting a human Messiah: The Gospel of John provides a divine One. The terms “Son,” “Son of God,” and “Son of Man”—all point to a divine identity. The Gospel itself highlights the Jews’ understanding of this component of deity. A plethora of verses exalt Christ as exercising rights reserved only for Yahweh, the only living God.103

The words and signs of Jesus convinced many Jews that He was indeed God in human form (although the church had not yet formalized the doctrine of a Triune God as we understand it today). Jesus was preexistent with God. He claimed equality with God. He could forgive sins, grant eternal life, pronounce eternal judgment, and work miraculous signs, including resurrecting His own body from the dead (John 10:18). Jesus accepted worship as God. Deity exudes from the pages of John’s Gospel.

The argument that the Old Testament and the Old Testament Apocrypha do not represent “Son of God” as divine is irrelevant. John introduced a new understanding for the Jewish term “Son of God,” just as he introduced a new understanding of the Greek word logos. The Gospel of John must stand on itsown merits by allowing the author to determine his own meaning for “Son of God.” Yes, the Jews did expect a human Messiah: the apostle John gave them Deity incarnate.

No convincing external evidence exists for understanding “Son of God” as Messiah. With the clear emphasis in John’s Gospel upon the deity of Jesus, the internal evidence of John should be given priority in determining the meaning of “Son of God.” John’s introduction explained the crucial theology and titles of Jesus through which we should interpret the remainder of his Gospel. The definition of “Son of God” (and “Christ”) should be determined from the entire Gospel of John, rather than from isolated verses. The Christ (Messiah) indicated the promised Savior of the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David who would reign as King, while “Son of God” highlighted His deity. Furthermore, immediately preceding the climactic statement for detailing the eight signs, we find the confession of Thomas—“My Lord and My God.”

In John’s Gospel, to believe that Jesus is the “Son of God” is to believe that He is God. John wrote to convince his readers that Jesus, who is the Christ, is also the divine Son of God. This may be the reason John did not write in 20:31, “Believe Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God” or “Believe Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God.” His point was this: the promised Messiah is the same as the divine Son of God. The eight signs of Jesus verified all of Jesus’ divine attributes introduced by John the Baptizer. Thus, the apostle records that the people said, “‘John performed no sign, but all the things John spoke about this Man were true.’ And many believed in Him there” (John 10:41–42). The Baptizer’s claims for the coming Christ—deity and forgiveness of sins—as recorded by John in his introduction, were still ringing in their ears as they observed Jesus. This cannot be overemphasized. Persons did not believe simply because they saw a miracle. Human prophets had performed miracles. These people in John’s Gospel were convinced that the human working those miracles was the very preexistent God who, as John the Baptizer had foretold, would forgive the sins of the world.

John wrote to convince us that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” That belief results in life. We must believe in the person of Christ, not his promise. Believing in Jesus results in eternal life; the apostle does not say one must believe in his promise with the result that one receives life. The apostle John champions belief in the deity of Jesus as necessary for eternal life. In contrast to Marshall’s theory,104 only because the early church believed that Jesus was divine did it allow Jewish believers to worship Him as they worshipped Yahweh. According to the Gospel of John, believing that Jesus is God is required for receiving the free gift of eternal life and for experiencing eternal life now by knowing God and Jesus (John 17:3)

[1]

---

103 103. Although outside the present discussion, it is interesting that all nine times that Satan or demons address Jesus in the Synoptics, they use the term “Son of God.” See Matt. 4:3, 6; 8:29; Mark 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:3, 9, 41, and 8:28. Only “Son of God” is used except in Luke 4:41, where we find “Christ, the Son of God.”
104 104. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament, 129: “The early church was not specifically concerned in the beginning with the divinity of Jesus.” The first disciples may not have comprehended the full implications of His divinity prior to His passion. However, immediately after His resurrection, the early church worshipped him as divine.
[1]Chafer Theological Seminary. (2006; 2007). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 12 (vnp.12.2.84-12.2.86). Chafer Theological Seminary.

 

[electedbyHim]

Runningman said: Jesus never directly stated he is God, he even went as far as to deny being God (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, John 8:40, John 10:36​

Some observations on the Scriptures you posted.


Matthew 19:17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord's view is, by his own language; and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity. Some copies read, "why dost thou ask me concerning good". And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires.


Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Why do you call Me good? Jesus challenged the young man to think through the implications of ascribing to Him the title "good." Since only God is intrinsically good, was he prepared to acknowledge Jesus' deity? By this query, Jesus did not deny His deity; on the contrary, He affirmed it.


John 8:40 “But now you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. This Abraham did not do.

Jesus continues: But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has been telling you the truth which I heard from God. This Abraham did not do. In sharp contrast with Abraham, who received God’s messengers most cordially (Gen. 18:1–8) and who looked forward with rejoicing to the coming of the Christ (see on 8:56), these Jews were seeking to kill the latter. They were plotting the downfall of mankind’s greatest Benefactor, a man (Christ’s human nature comes to the fore here) who is, nevertheless, also God, having come from the very presence of God, so that he can say: I have been telling you what I have heard from God. Note the first personal pronoun used in the original; literally: “a man who the truth to you I have been telling.” For evidences of the fact that the Jews were really plotting to kill Jesus see on 8:37 (the references listed there). For the meaning of the statement, “I have been telling you the truth which I heard from God,” see on 5:30; 7:16; and 8:26; and cf. 3:11; 5:19, 32, 37. For the meaning of the term the truth see on 8:32. The little sentence, “This Abraham did not do,” is again litotes: Abraham did the very opposite (see especially 8:56).[1]

[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, vol. 2, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 57.


John 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

It is important to note that Jesus, having been charged with blasphemy because His opponents knew exactly what He was claiming, did not claim that they had misunderstood Him. His refusal to do so makes it clear that His declaration, “I and the Father are one” (v. 30), was in fact what they knew it to be, a claim to be God.

Jesus knew how seriously they took the very word God, so He addressed that one matter by quoting a passage from the Old Testament: “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? The very Law (a reference here to the entire Old Testament, not just the Pentateuch) that the Jews prized so highly used the term gods to refer to others than God Himself. The reference is to Psalm 82:6, where God rebuked Israel’s unjust judges, calling them gods (in a far lesser sense) because they ruled as His representatives and spokesmen (cf. Ex. 4:16; 7:1). The Jewish leaders could not dispute the fact that those judges were called gods, because the Scripture cannot be broken—a clear and unambiguous declaration of the absolute authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Scripture can never be nullified or set aside (see the discussion of Matt. 5:17–19 in Matthew 1–7, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1985], 249–273), though the Jews often tried (cf. Mark 7:13).

Since God called the unjust judges gods, Jesus’ argument ran, how could His opponents say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because He said, “I am the Son of God?” If mere men, who were evil, could in some sense be called gods, how could it be inappropriate for Jesus, the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, to call Himself the Son of God (cf. 5:19–27)? The point is not to add to the evidence of His deity; it is simply a rebuke on the level of their overreaction to the use of the word God in reference to Jesus. He had proven that He was entitled to that title in the full divine sense, as He would affirm again in vv. 37–38. They were merely those to whom the word of God came; Jesus was the Incarnate Word of God (1:1, 14). As one commentator further explains,

This passage is sometimes misinterpreted as though Jesus was simply classing himself with men in general. He appeals to the psalm that speaks of men as “gods,” so runs the reasoning, and thus justifies his speaking of himself as Son of God. He is “god” in the same sense as others. But this is not taking seriously enough what Jesus actually says. He is arguing from the less to the greater. If the word god could be used of people who were no more than judges, how much more could it be used of one with greater dignity, greater importance and significance than any mere judge, one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world”? He is not placing himself on a level with men, but setting himself apart from them. (Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000], 396)

The Lord’s appeal to the Old Testament was a challenge again for the Jewish leaders to abandon their biased conclusions about Him and consider the objective evidence. In that same vein Jesus continued by saying, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” As He had so many other times before, with annoying patience (cf. vv. 25, 32; 5:19–20, 36; 14:10–11) the Lord appealed to His works as proof of His indivisible union with the Father (v. 30). But incredibly, the religious leaders of Israel were so spiritually blind that they could not recognize God’s works. If Jesus did not do the works of the Father, they would have been right in refusing to believe Him. On the other hand, because He did do them, they should have put aside their reluctance to believe His words, and chosen instead to believe the clear testimony of His works. As supposed men of God, they should have been willing to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.[1]

[1] John F. MacArthur Jr., John 1–11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2006), 445–446.

 

[My Rock]

According to Scripture, if you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah then you will die in your sins. Jesus never directly stated he is God, he even went as far as to deny being God (Matthew 19:17

Matthew 19:17, Jesus responds to the rich young ruler's address, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God," revealing a profound truth about the nature of God and humanity. Jesus, fully embodying the human experience, directs the ruler to recognize the true source of all goodness—God alone. This statement is not a denial of His divinity but a call to understand that, in His God's mortal humanity, Jesus (as the father's flesh) always pointed to the Father as the ultimate example of righteousness and perfection. The practical implication for believers is a recognition that apart from God, mortal human goodness is insufficient; true righteousness comes from aligning one's life with immortal God's commandments.

What you seem to be saying is that you believe Jesus is God. In that case, he would actually not be the Messiah.

The book of Isaiah affirms this truth that God is Messiah, as seen in Isaiah 43:11, where God declares, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." This passage emphasizes that there is no other savior apart from God Himself, which is symbolically fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Isaiah 45:21 further echoes this: "And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." These verses underscore that the role of the Savior is uniquely God's, and by identifying Jesus as the Savior, the New Testament reveals that Jesus is indeed God manifest in the flesh. Therefore, recognizing Jesus as God does not contradict His messianic role but completes it, revealing the depths of God's redemptive plan. The incarnation is the fulfillment of God's promise to be the only Savior, with Jesus as the ultimate expression of God's love and justice, reconciling the world to Himself.

The prophecies concerning Jesus throughout the Old Testament all indicate that the Messiah would be a mortal man that would die for the sins of the people, according to Isaiah 53 for example. He was a suffering servant of God who's very soul was made a sin offering. In other words, not only did Jesus' body die, but also his soul as well.

Isaiah 53 indeed portrays the Messiah as a suffering servant, but this does not negate His divinity. The passage symbolizes the depth of Jesus' sacrifice, where His soul was made an offering for sin, highlighting His full participation in human suffering and mortality. However, the term "soul" in Hebrew can also refer to the totality of one's being, encompassing both the physical and spiritual aspects. Jesus, being fully God and fully man, God experienced death in His human nature, offering His entire being—body, soul, and spirit—as a sin offering. This act does not diminish His divinity but rather emphasizes the extent to which God went to redeem humanity, showing that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, fully entered into human suffering to accomplish salvation.

Isaiah chapter 53 describes a mortal man who died both body and soul and in this way Jesus was the Messiah. His death was required in order to complete this task.

Isaiah 53 points to the Messiah's role in bearing the sins of humanity and offering His life as a ransom. This is understood as the incarnation—God manifesting in the flesh to fulfill the role of the suffering servant. Jesus' death was indeed required to complete the task of salvation, but His mortality does not contradict His divinity. Instead, it demonstrates the profound truth that God Himself took on human flesh to accomplish what no mere human could. Jesus' death was not just the death of a mortal man; it was the ultimate sacrifice of the sinless God in a human body, who alone could satisfy the demands of justice and extend mercy to humanity. This dual nature of Christ—fully God and fully man—is essential to understanding the completeness of His work on the cross.

There is not even a hint of God incarnating as a man or that the Messiah would be God in Scripture.

While the Old Testament may not explicitly state that the Messiah would be God incarnate the entirety of Scripture points to this profound truth. Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin conceiving and bearing a son named Immanuel, meaning "God with us," which symbolically foreshadows the incarnation. Additionally, passages like Isaiah 9:6 refer to the coming Messiah as "The Mighty God" and "The Everlasting Father," indicating His divine nature. The New Testament clarifies this mystery, revealing Jesus as the fulfillment of these prophecies. In John 1:14, we see the Word, which was God, becoming flesh. The incarnation was necessary for God to fully reveal Himself and accomplish redemption. Therefore, far from being an absence of this concept in Scripture, the incarnation is the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, hidden in the Old Testament and revealed in the New.

 

[My Rock]

God bleeding isn't a Christian doctrine

Acts 20:28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he (God) hath purchased with his own blood."

 

[My Rock]

So if Jesus is God then that would mean Jesus didn't die because God is described as the one who is alone immortal (1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16) and Jesus is not immortal (Revelation 1:18.)

This statement misunderstands the nature of Jesus as both fully God and fully man. When God took on human flesh, He entered into mortality as part of the redemptive plan. The scripture in Revelation 1:18 reveals that Jesus, after His resurrection, declares, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore." This verse does not contradict the immortality of God but rather emphasizes the unique nature of Jesus' sacrifice. As God in flesh, Jesus experienced death in His human nature, not in His divine nature. The implication is that through His death, He conquered death and now holds the keys to death and Hades. His resurrection affirms His eternal nature as God, who now lives forevermore, having triumphed over death. The incarnation allowed God to experience death on behalf of humanity, fulfilling the requirement for a perfect, sinless sacrifice while affirming that Jesus, as God, is indeed immortal in His divine essence.

Since being immortal means that someone cannot die, then that would mean Jesus did not actually die for the sins of the people.

This statement neglects the dual nature of Christ—His full divinity and full humanity. The death of Jesus was a real, historical event in which His human nature suffered and died on the cross. The significance of this event is deeply Scriptural. In His humanity, Jesus bore the sins of the world, dying as a perfect sacrifice to atone for sin. However, His divine nature remained unchanged, for God cannot die. The meaning here is that God's love and justice met perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ. His human death was necessary to fulfill the law and provide redemption, while His divine nature guaranteed the efficacy and eternal power of that sacrifice. This assures believers that Jesus' death was not just the death of a man, but the redemptive act of God, making the sacrifice sufficient for the salvation of all who believe.

 

[Runningman]

This statement misunderstands the nature of Jesus as both fully God and fully man. When God took on human flesh, He entered into mortality as part of the redemptive plan. The scripture in Revelation 1:18 reveals that Jesus, after His resurrection, declares, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore." This verse does not contradict the immortality of God but rather emphasizes the unique nature of Jesus' sacrifice. As God in flesh, Jesus experienced death in His human nature, not in His divine nature. The implication is that through His death, He conquered death and now holds the keys to death and Hades. His resurrection affirms His eternal nature as God, who now lives forevermore, having triumphed over death. The incarnation allowed God to experience death on behalf of humanity, fulfilling the requirement for a perfect, sinless sacrifice while affirming that Jesus, as God, is indeed immortal in His divine essence.

This statement neglects the dual nature of Christ—His full divinity and full humanity. The death of Jesus was a real, historical event in which His human nature suffered and died on the cross. The significance of this event is deeply Scriptural. In His humanity, Jesus bore the sins of the world, dying as a perfect sacrifice to atone for sin. However, His divine nature remained unchanged, for God cannot die. The meaning here is that God's love and justice met perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ. His human death was necessary to fulfill the law and provide redemption, while His divine nature guaranteed the efficacy and eternal power of that sacrifice. This assures believers that Jesus' death was not just the death of a man, but the redemptive act of God, making the sacrifice sufficient for the salvation of all who believe.

I would like to begin with the fact that Jesus is not "fully God and fully man" because these two nature are contradictory one to another. A man is not God and God is not a man (Numbers 23:11, Hosea 11:9) according to God.

What you seem to be arguing in favor of now is something called the hypostatic union doctrine. However, if being "the first and the last" are exclusive titles that indicate deity, then Jesus not only identified himself as the first and last, but also said he died (Revelation 1:17,18.)

Therefore, since God alone possesses immortality (1 Timothy 6:16) and the first and the last died (Revelation 1:17,18) then being the first and the last is not a title that would be indicative of the deity of Jesus.

Furthermore, while the phrase "Jesus conquered death" is popular in Trinitarian churches, it is not actually a Biblical doctrine of Scripture. Regarding Jesus' death and resurrection, John 2:22 says that Jesus was risen from the dead as indicated by the word "risen" being a verb in the aorist indicative passive 3rd person singular usage of the word. What this means is that an agent external to Jesus' self was responsible for his resurrection and freedom from death.

Reading along more into Acts 2, verse 24 says, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." While John 2:22 refers to an unnamed and unspecified agent that was external to Jesus being the one who resurrected him, we can now see in Acts 2:24 that the agent responsible for Jesus' resurrection is God, not Jesus, who released Jesus from the bonds of death.

Jesus' resurrection was also conditional on his reverent fear of God as Hebrews 5:7 says, "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared..." As a result of Jesus revering God, God saved Jesus from death.

Therefore, since Jesus died and required external assistance to resurrect him then the hypostatic union doctrine is false and that means Jesus isn't God.

 

[Runningman]

Acts 20:28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he (God) hath purchased with his own blood."

There is no mention of God, who is immortal, eternal, and invisible having blood in Scripture. This is a translational issue and this will be briefly clarified using Scripture as well.

The American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) show manuscript evidence for Acts 20:28 supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood." Many modern versions support and publish their Bibles with the correct version.

Based on Scripture, God did not make the purchase with His blood (God doesn't have blood because he's a Spirit according to John 4:24,) but Revelation 5:9 says, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" therefore the people were not redeemed to God by His blood, but rather the blood of the Lamb who Revelation consistently shows is not God (Revelation 1:8, 18, 21:22, etc...)

 

[Runningman]

Matthew 19:17, Jesus responds to the rich young ruler's address, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God," revealing a profound truth about the nature of God and humanity. Jesus, fully embodying the human experience, directs the ruler to recognize the true source of all goodness—God alone. This statement is not a denial of His divinity but a call to understand that, in His God's mortal humanity, Jesus (as the father's flesh) always pointed to the Father as the ultimate example of righteousness and perfection. The practical implication for believers is a recognition that apart from God, mortal human goodness is insufficient; true righteousness comes from aligning one's life with immortal God's commandments.

All Jesus needed to do was agree that he is God if he is God, something that God will readily do as shown in Genesis to Revelation. It is not in the nature of God to be deceptive or lie. Therefore when Jesus did not admit to being God, but rather denied it by deferring glory to God, Jesus was actually just speaking the truth. The common sense reading of Matthew 19:17 is that Jesus denied being God and this is how most people will understand it, all theological arguments aside.

The book of Isaiah affirms this truth that God is Messiah, as seen in Isaiah 43:11, where God declares, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." This passage emphasizes that there is no other savior apart from God Himself, which is symbolically fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Isaiah 45:21 further echoes this: "And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me." These verses underscore that the role of the Savior is uniquely God's, and by identifying Jesus as the Savior, the New Testament reveals that Jesus is indeed God manifest in the flesh. Therefore, recognizing Jesus as God does not contradict His messianic role but completes it, revealing the depths of God's redemptive plan. The incarnation is the fulfillment of God's promise to be the only Savior, with Jesus as the ultimate expression of God's love and justice, reconciling the world to Himself.

These verses do not say that the Messiah is God. For starters, there can be more than one person who is a savior without them being the same person and they can work together. This speaks to God being the primary savior as John 3:16,17 states. God saved the world through Jesus, not that Jesus and God saved the world together. This is important to understand since even Jesus himself needed a savior according to Hebrews 5:7.

So while Jesus does play a role in salvation, he couldn't have accomplished what he did without obedience to God and the salvation that only God can provide through His gospel.

Isaiah 53 indeed portrays the Messiah as a suffering servant, but this does not negate His divinity. The passage symbolizes the depth of Jesus' sacrifice, where His soul was made an offering for sin, highlighting His full participation in human suffering and mortality. However, the term "soul" in Hebrew can also refer to the totality of one's being, encompassing both the physical and spiritual aspects. Jesus, being fully God and fully man, God experienced death in His human nature, offering His entire being—body, soul, and spirit—as a sin offering. This act does not diminish His divinity but rather emphasizes the extent to which God went to redeem humanity, showing that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, fully entered into human suffering to accomplish salvation.

Isaiah 53 proves that Jesus wasn't ever God in the first place because it demonstrates that Jesus was sacrificed for sins, both body and soul, and therefore died completely.

With the primary doctrine of the Trinity being found in the Athanasian Creed, I will defer to a quote from it to show that Isaiah 53 demonstrates the doctrine of the Trinity isn't a Biblical viable doctrine "That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence..."

As you can see above, if the soul of a member of the Trinitarian Godhead was sacrificed then the essence of God that would have been found in the Son not only ceased being in the Son, but it died. Therefore, a fraction of God died and Godhead became a Binity rather than a Trinity. This is problematic because it demonstrates that the Trinitarian God does not have an immortal soul or essence.

Isaiah 53 points to the Messiah's role in bearing the sins of humanity and offering His life as a ransom. This is understood as the incarnation—God manifesting in the flesh to fulfill the role of the suffering servant. Jesus' death was indeed required to complete the task of salvation, but His mortality does not contradict His divinity. Instead, it demonstrates the profound truth that God Himself took on human flesh to accomplish what no mere human could. Jesus' death was not just the death of a mortal man; it was the ultimate sacrifice of the sinless God in a human body, who alone could satisfy the demands of justice and extend mercy to humanity. This dual nature of Christ—fully God and fully man—is essential to understanding the completeness of His work on the cross.

It is not the flesh and blood that is sinless because all flesh and blood really truly is is miscellaneous elements and compounds that are neither inherently good nor evil. We are fundamentally made of matter and this matter possess neither the will nor inclination to sin or be sinless, because it does not have have evil desires.

Who the sinner actually is in each of us is the soul and/or spirit piloting this body. While Jesus' body was indeed sacrificed, the key element of the sacrifice was the soul of Jesus and Isaiah 53 says this.

I would also like to point out something Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Notice in John 15:13 where in the KJV Jesus said "life." This is the very word for soul in the Greek and it's compatible with Scripture that Jesus not only laid down or forfeited his life in the general sense, but also laid down his very soul.

While the Old Testament may not explicitly state that the Messiah would be God incarnate the entirety of Scripture points to this profound truth. Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin conceiving and bearing a son named Immanuel, meaning "God with us," which symbolically foreshadows the incarnation. Additionally, passages like Isaiah 9:6 refer to the coming Messiah as "The Mighty God" and "The Everlasting Father," indicating His divine nature. The New Testament clarifies this mystery, revealing Jesus as the fulfillment of these prophecies. In John 1:14, we see the Word, which was God, becoming flesh. The incarnation was necessary for God to fully reveal Himself and accomplish redemption. Therefore, far from being an absence of this concept in Scripture, the incarnation is the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, hidden in the Old Testament and revealed in the New.

I will just have to remind you that the word "incarnate" is not found in Scripture and Jesus was never called "mighty God" or "everlasting Father" in Scripture despite what Isaiah 9:6. Actually, if Jesus is the "everlasting Father" then that would mean the Son is the Father and that would not help Trinitarianism anyway. I am afraid that defeats your premise.

 

[Runningman]

Some observations on the Scriptures you posted.


Matthew 19:17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord's view is, by his own language; and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity. Some copies read, "why dost thou ask me concerning good". And so the Vulgate Latin, and the Ethiopic versions, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel read; but the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, read as we do, and this the answer of Christ requires.


Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Why do you call Me good? Jesus challenged the young man to think through the implications of ascribing to Him the title "good." Since only God is intrinsically good, was he prepared to acknowledge Jesus' deity? By this query, Jesus did not deny His deity; on the contrary, He affirmed it.


John 8:40 “But now you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. This Abraham did not do.

Jesus continues: But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has been telling you the truth which I heard from God. This Abraham did not do. In sharp contrast with Abraham, who received God’s messengers most cordially (Gen. 18:1–8) and who looked forward with rejoicing to the coming of the Christ (see on 8:56), these Jews were seeking to kill the latter. They were plotting the downfall of mankind’s greatest Benefactor, a man (Christ’s human nature comes to the fore here) who is, nevertheless, also God, having come from the very presence of God, so that he can say: I have been telling you what I have heard from God. Note the first personal pronoun used in the original; literally: “a man who the truth to you I have been telling.” For evidences of the fact that the Jews were really plotting to kill Jesus see on 8:37 (the references listed there). For the meaning of the statement, “I have been telling you the truth which I heard from God,” see on 5:30; 7:16; and 8:26; and cf. 3:11; 5:19, 32, 37. For the meaning of the term the truth see on 8:32. The little sentence, “This Abraham did not do,” is again litotes: Abraham did the very opposite (see especially 8:56).[1]

[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, vol. 2, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 57.


John 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

It is important to note that Jesus, having been charged with blasphemy because His opponents knew exactly what He was claiming, did not claim that they had misunderstood Him. His refusal to do so makes it clear that His declaration, “I and the Father are one” (v. 30), was in fact what they knew it to be, a claim to be God.

Jesus knew how seriously they took the very word God, so He addressed that one matter by quoting a passage from the Old Testament: “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? The very Law (a reference here to the entire Old Testament, not just the Pentateuch) that the Jews prized so highly used the term gods to refer to others than God Himself. The reference is to Psalm 82:6, where God rebuked Israel’s unjust judges, calling them gods (in a far lesser sense) because they ruled as His representatives and spokesmen (cf. Ex. 4:16; 7:1). The Jewish leaders could not dispute the fact that those judges were called gods, because the Scripture cannot be broken—a clear and unambiguous declaration of the absolute authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Scripture can never be nullified or set aside (see the discussion of Matt. 5:17–19 in Matthew 1–7, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1985], 249–273), though the Jews often tried (cf. Mark 7:13).

Since God called the unjust judges gods, Jesus’ argument ran, how could His opponents say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because He said, “I am the Son of God?” If mere men, who were evil, could in some sense be called gods, how could it be inappropriate for Jesus, the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, to call Himself the Son of God (cf. 5:19–27)? The point is not to add to the evidence of His deity; it is simply a rebuke on the level of their overreaction to the use of the word God in reference to Jesus. He had proven that He was entitled to that title in the full divine sense, as He would affirm again in vv. 37–38. They were merely those to whom the word of God came; Jesus was the Incarnate Word of God (1:1, 14). As one commentator further explains,

This passage is sometimes misinterpreted as though Jesus was simply classing himself with men in general. He appeals to the psalm that speaks of men as “gods,” so runs the reasoning, and thus justifies his speaking of himself as Son of God. He is “god” in the same sense as others. But this is not taking seriously enough what Jesus actually says. He is arguing from the less to the greater. If the word god could be used of people who were no more than judges, how much more could it be used of one with greater dignity, greater importance and significance than any mere judge, one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world”? He is not placing himself on a level with men, but setting himself apart from them. (Leon Morris, Reflections on the Gospel of John [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000], 396)

The Lord’s appeal to the Old Testament was a challenge again for the Jewish leaders to abandon their biased conclusions about Him and consider the objective evidence. In that same vein Jesus continued by saying, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” As He had so many other times before, with annoying patience (cf. vv. 25, 32; 5:19–20, 36; 14:10–11) the Lord appealed to His works as proof of His indivisible union with the Father (v. 30). But incredibly, the religious leaders of Israel were so spiritually blind that they could not recognize God’s works. If Jesus did not do the works of the Father, they would have been right in refusing to believe Him. On the other hand, because He did do them, they should have put aside their reluctance to believe His words, and chosen instead to believe the clear testimony of His works. As supposed men of God, they should have been willing to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.[1]

[1] John F. MacArthur Jr., John 1–11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2006), 445–446.

Thank you, but did you notice that contrary to all of the statements or accusations against him that not only did he not agree with any of them, but his responses were a claim different to what the original accusations were? Yes you can make theological arguments, but you can't objectively say that Jesus every claimed to be God and there is a lot of words that suggest Jesus was arguing against it or denying it.

In Scripture, God comes right out and says He's God and doesn't need to rebuttal it. Jesus, however, spoke in a manner consistent with how one would expect someone who isn't God to talk, even saying he's just a man who spoke the truth he heard from God. I believe the common person using common sense would read Jesus' words as a denial of deity.

 

[My Rock]

I would like to begin with the fact that Jesus is not "fully God and fully man" because these two nature are contradictory one to another. A man is not God and God is not a man (Numbers 23:11

I believe you mean Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

This is just simply stating the God would not be a lying Man or a Sinning Man in need of Repentance.

Besides, you can believe that God is Omnipresent Spirit and invisible seeing His people in Egypt and at the same time talking, in a single location, in a bush to Moses. But you can't believe the same about God and Jesus that would be irrational.

 

[Fastfredy0]

You're attempting to turn salvation into a conditional statement where believing Jesus is God is a prerequisite for salvation.

True

What you have created is just another theological argument where according to the rules you made people go to hell for not believing what you do.

Well, true ... but you state it as if I created the thought that one must believe that Jesus is God to be saved as if there was not any scripture to back it up. Although, scripture clearly states that Christ is God, the association of "Christ being God" being foundational to salvation is nicely stated by My Rock:

​

The book of Isaiah affirms this truth that God is Messiah, as seen in Isaiah 43:11, where God declares, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." This passage emphasizes that there is no other savior apart from God Himself, which is symbolically fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Isaiah 45:21 further echoes this: "And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."

Very good Rock. Your answers are better than mine. You're saving me a lot of typing. Thank you.

The matter is Calvin and the Bible don't say you need to believe Jesus is God

I grant it is not clearly stated. But then the facts that make up the components of 'saving faith' are not plainly listed. You ask 10 Christians what facts one must believe to be saved and you will get 9 varying answers IMO. John Calvin, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Faith consists more of certainty that “Christ is Lord and Savior” rather than “discernment of facts”.

Yet, Faith is limited by knowledge for one cannot believe what one does not know. One cannot be saved without knowledge of Christ. I think it's essential that one believe that Christ is God.

 

[Runningman]

True


Well, true ... but you state it as if I created the thought that one must believe that Jesus is God to be saved as if there was not any scripture to back it up. Although, scripture clearly states that Christ is God, the association of "Christ being God" being foundational to salvation is nicely stated by My Rock:

​

Very good Rock. Your answers are better than mine. You're saving me a lot of typing. Thank you.



I grant it is not clearly stated. But then the facts that make up the components of 'saving faith' are not plainly listed. You ask 10 Christians what facts one must believe to be saved and you will get 9 varying answers IMO. John Calvin, in the Institutes of the Christian Religion writes: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Faith consists more of certainty that “Christ is Lord and Savior” rather than “discernment of facts”.

Yet, Faith is limited by knowledge for one cannot believe what one does not know. One cannot be saved without knowledge of Christ. I think it's essential that one believe that Christ is God.

While it's true the God and Jesus are both a savior, they are not the same savior. Jesus is instrumental in God's plan of salvation, but God does the saving through Jesus. (John 3:16,17)

For starters, John 17:2 shows that Jesus did not inherently have power to save anyone until the Father gave him this power to give eternal life. After that, Jesus went on to call the Father the Only True God in John 17:3. Since the Father is the only true God, then. Therefore, Jesus isn't the source of eternal life and Jesus' life was also given to him. Jesus said in John 5:26, "the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself..." Therefore, Jesus didn't have life until the Father gave him life.

So once again, there isn't a clear path to salvation in Trinitarianism because your salvation doctrine relies on Jesus being God and God never died or was sacrificed. There is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus alone is the savior and there is no other because God and Jesus aren't the same person. Jesus is the Son of YHWH, not YHWH Himself.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...

 

[Runningman]

I believe you mean Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

This is just simply stating the God would not be a lying Man or a Sinning Man in need of Repentance.

Besides, you can believe that God is Omnipresent Spirit and invisible seeing His people in Egypt and at the same time talking, in a single location, in a bush to Moses. But you can't believe the same about God and Jesus that would be irrational.

Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9 both directly say God is not what you are saying He is. This is a serious problem for your Trinity doctrine because God never said anything to the contrary. Since a human being God would be idolatry and God doesn't perpetuate idolatry then Jesus can't be God either logically and rationally according to Scripture.

The doctrine about Jesus being God wasn't really hashed out and formalized until the 4th century at the 1st council of Nicaea. It's been tradition ever since, but no it's not Scripture. You and I have talked long enough across various threads for you to see that at every turn the Bible provides a rebuttal against Trinitarianism.

 

[My Rock]

Furthermore, while the phrase "Jesus conquered death" is popular in Trinitarian churches, it is not actually a Biblical doctrine of Scripture. Regarding Jesus' death and resurrection, John 2:22 says that Jesus was risen from the dead as indicated by the word "risen" being a verb in the aorist indicative passive 3rd person singular usage of the word. What this means is that an agent external to Jesus' self was responsible for his resurrection and freedom from death.

Reading along more into Acts 2, verse 24 says, "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." While John 2:22 refers to an unnamed and unspecified agent that was external to Jesus being the one who resurrected him, we can now see in Acts 2:24 that the agent responsible for Jesus' resurrection is God, not Jesus, who released Jesus from the bonds of death.

John 2:19-21, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body."

John 10:17-18, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

Very clearly and plainly Scripture says Christ has the power to resurrect His own body. How, because He is God.

 

[My Rock]

There is no mention of God, who is immortal, eternal, and invisible having blood in Scripture. This is a translational issue and this will be briefly clarified using Scripture as well.

The American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) show manuscript evidence for Acts 20:28 supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood." Many modern versions support and publish their Bibles with the correct version.

The claim that "there is no mention of God, who is immortal, eternal, and invisible having blood in Scripture" overlooks the profound truth of the incarnation, where God manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:16). The blood that was shed on the cross was indeed the blood of God, for in Christ, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9). This underscores the reality that the immortal, eternal, and invisible God took on human flesh to purchase the church with His own blood, fully identifying with humanity while still being divine. The symbolic significance here is that the sacrificial blood of Jesus is not merely human but is of divine origin, bridging the gap between God and man, making the sacrifice uniquely efficacious for our redemption.

Regarding the translational argument, the phrase "blood of His own (Son)" versus "His own blood" does not diminish the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The practical implication is that Jesus, as the Son, is not a separate person from God but rather the manifestation of God in the flesh. The scriptural context supports that the "church of God" was indeed purchased by God's own sacrifice, which is why the blood shed is referred to as "His own." This emphasizes that Jesus, in His humanity, was the means through which God provided salvation. Therefore, the essence of the passage remains consistent across translations: the blood shed was not just any blood but the precious blood of God in Christ, making the church a treasured possession purchased at the highest price.

 

[My Rock]

All Jesus needed to do was agree that he is God if he is God, something that God will readily do as shown in Genesis to Revelation. It is not in the nature of God to be deceptive or lie. Therefore when Jesus did not admit to being God, but rather denied it by deferring glory to God, Jesus was actually just speaking the truth. The common sense reading of Matthew 19:17 is that Jesus denied being God and this is how most people will understand it, all theological arguments aside.

John 20:28-29, "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

I see no rebuke from Jesus in His word to Thomas.

Actually, if Jesus is the "everlasting Father" then that would mean the Son is the Father and that would not help Trinitarianism anyway. I am afraid that defeats your premise.

If you don't understand where my premise lies you haven't really been reading my posts.

 

[My Rock]

Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9 both directly say God is not what you are saying He is. This is a serious problem for your Trinity doctrine because God never said anything to the contrary. Since a human being God would be idolatry and God doesn't perpetuate idolatry then Jesus can't be God either logically and rationally according to Scripture.

The doctrine about Jesus being God wasn't really hashed out and formalized until the 4th century at the 1st council of Nicaea. It's been tradition ever since, but no it's not Scripture. You and I have talked long enough across various threads for you to see that at every turn the Bible provides a rebuttal against Trinitarianism.

You skipped right past this point here:

You can believe that God is an Omnipresent Spirit and invisible seeing His people in Egypt and at the same time talking, in a single location, in a bush to Moses. But you can't believe the same about God and Jesus that would be irrational.

 

[Fastfredy0]

For starters, John 17:2 shows that Jesus did not inherently have power to save anyone until the Father gave him this power to give eternal life.

You fail to distinguish between the human and divine nature of Christ. The human nature has to be given authority via the divine nature. John 17:2 does not go into the division of the two natures. When speaking of Christ scripture can speak of the divine or human nature.

Jesus isn't the source of eternal life and Jesus' life was also given to him.

Again, I argue that Christ had two natures. Eternal life was given to the human nature. The divine nature is eternal.

Therefore, Jesus didn't have life until the Father gave him life.

True, the human nature of Jesus did not have like at one time. God decided to abide in a human nature...like a man putting on a suit. I can talk about the man or the suit. When I say "you're lookin good" I speak to both natures. When I say Jesus is God I could speak to the human nature as it is part of the whole being of Jesus which includes a divine nature. Thus Jesus disciples called Jesus God.

So once again, there isn't a clear path to salvation in Trinitarianism because your salvation doctrine relies on Jesus being God and God never died or was sacrificed.

The human nature of God died in Christ.

Jesus is the Son of YHWH, not YHWH Himself.

Well, then you either:
1) Don't worship Jesus or
2) You worship an idol

Again, just because I put on a suit I am still me.... and if God puts on a human body He is still God.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I like My Rock answers. I will let him take it from here.

back to chewing my