Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Carry_Your_Name]

What black and white view, the one that the Church has held since the beginning? The one you agreed with? It seems that you don't believe in absolute truth or that we can know it, despite your claim to know it. Is that a correct assessment? Have you given into the error of relativism?

The correct assessment I have given into is Jn. 12:25. Paul later said that Jesus once taught, “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” I guarantee you, nowhere can this teaching be found anywhere in the four gospels. Therefore it is you who’s begging the questionS - what “truth” are you referring to? And how’s that “truth” absolute with no space for improvement?

In the context of the discussion, which is something you don't seem to understand, and in the context of Scripture, which is sufficient, we know all we need to know about Jesus--who he is, what he has done, and why it matters. That means we know enough to be able to tell a false Jesus from the true Jesus.

No sir, you boldly stated, “It's conflict between believers and unbelievers, between true teachers and false teachers, between true teaching and false teaching, between truth and lies.” I challenged that, I called that black and white thinking, you don’t know all the truth, and you’re not right about everything, that’s the context you purposefully avoid to address. I don’t understand the “context”? Well tell that to my lord and savior who didn’t seem to understand the context of “is it legal to pay poll tax to Caesar” “should this adulterous woman be stoned” “can you divorce for any reason” either. He totally flipped the script, I just followed his example.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The rest of what, 'all the "truths" of Jesus'? Are you suggesting there are other sources of truth about Jesus? Where are all these other supposed truths?

Yeah, show me what is Paul’s source in Acts 20:35 - “it is more blessed to give than to receive?” When did Jesus say that? Where did he get that?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I have only dismissed that which is not relevant to the discussion.

If this is a discussion about "trinitarians vs non-trinitarians", then it's identity politics, and it's wrong to begin with, that's my only point. If we keep this in-fighting, we'd be irrelevant to the rest of the world.

You said that "the gospel books themselves are just a tiny fragment of all the "truths" of Jesus, says the bible itself,' and then post this verse. Which I fully agree with.

If you did, you wouldn't have insisted with your "truth vs lies" false dichotomy, knowing that the bible is suffient but NOT exhaustive, you don't own all the truth, and not all you own is true.

Do you see the particular statement "if they were written one by one"? How does that fit with your question, "So what about the rest?"

Obviously the rest were not written one by one, written messages were rare in the ancient times.

Notice verses 33-34 and 37-39? Jesus is very clearly talking about belief in him and following him. Verses 34-36, then, are stating that when one becomes a follower of Jesus, his or her "enemies will be those of his [or her] own household." That absolutely is a theological dispute--it's about whether one accepts and follows Christ or rejects him.

No sir, that's a family dispute. One becomes a follower of Jesus, his or her family members don't, they're followers of their own idols. A "theological dispute" is limited between two or more followers of Jesus who hold different perspectives, not followers and pagans.

Where, exactly, did I accuse you of doubting Jesus's deity? I have not done so.

Then why did you keep lecturing me about Jesus's deity and avoiding to address the division?

These are all actions of personal agency. And on it goes. It all points to the Spirit being a person and also being truly God, in the same way Jesus is truly God. Being deity then, it can only mean they are all the one God and are coequal and coeternal.

First of all, how do you know that this supposed "personhood" is not a product of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, i.e. attributing human form and emotion to a non-human entity? You know, Runningman kept dragging this argument that "God is not a man", "God is spirit", and yet he "walks" in the garden (Gen. 3:8), he "speaks" and "listens" throughout the whole Exodus, he "sits" on the throne and "laughs" (Ps. 2:4), how did God do all of those as a spirit and not a man? And since the Holy Spirit is "coequal and coeternal", all of these must be equally applicable to the Holy Spirit, right?

Second, how do you know that all these actions are not a virtual presence of Jesus the Son, but a distinct third person? If you're on Zoom or Facetime or Skype, you can listen, speak, teach, watch, etc. it has been normalized since the pandemic; when I'm at a Zoom meeting or a Zoom class, my colleague or my teacher is with me in spirit. So is Jesus not greater than those? Can't he remotely operate through us?

Recently I debated with a member here, I argued from a traditional trinitarian position, that it is the Holy Spirit living in our heart, leading and guiding us, Jesus the Son is in heaven, seated at the right hand of God, while he insisted that no, Jesus himself is with us and living in our heart, and we both proof-texted with a bunch of scriptures. I don't agree with him, but I gotta admit that he has a point, and it plants doubts about the personhood of the Spirit in me. If Jesus is the head and we the church is his body, then I don't see how the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, since the body and the head are one person, the body is not a distinct person from the head.

Personal testimonies are not the topic of this thread.

Then don't ask for it. You begged the question "who is Jesus" and revered it as the "central issue" above all, the only proper response to that is a personal testimony, says the bible.

And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 12:17)

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Word relates to the gospel message. Word is something spoken. The philosopher’s like Plato and Socrates had different ideas. But I don’t follow their teaching as some do.

You don't beleive that the Word took on flesh like John 1:14 states ?..."And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
John wasn't a student of Plato or Socrates.

 

[LeviR]

You don't beleive that the Word took on flesh like John 1:14 states ?..."And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
John wasn't a student of Plato or Socrates.

There are no persons who don’t have a physical body, from the father on down.
The text says the word became flesh. What the word was, was made flesh.
It doesn’t speak of an immaterial person joining himself, but not mixing, with a body.

 

[Randy]

But the only true God, the Father, no mortal man has seen, nor can see, else they’d be consumed on the spot.

Jesus has seen Him as the only one who came from the Fathers presence and testifies to what He saw and heard as the only such eyewitness of God. John 1:18
The eternal life that was with the Father from the beginning. The Word of life. That same life appeared in flesh and was heard, touched and seen. John is testifying to that same eternal life that was from the beginning. (Jesus the Son) God was the Logos. Clearly the Logos has the Fathers nature found in Him and not His own and is all that the Father is and He and the Father are "one". We read that Col 1:19; Hebrews 1:3

 

[miamited]

WalterandDebbie, Is there a question that is being asked or did this get started in the wrong forum?

Hi WIP

As this is under the 'apologetic' threads, I'm not clear on 'why' there needs to be a question asked to be a worthwhile discussion of the issue brought up here. I've always seen apologetics as not so much asking questions, but more about teaching what God's word says, or supporting such teachings as are found in the Scriptures.

I do apologize as this thread has gone waaaaay beyond since your post.

God bless,
Ted

 

[LeviR]

Jesus has seen Him as the only one who came from the Fathers presence and testifies to what He saw and heard as the only such eyewitness of God. John 1:18
The eternal life that was with the Father from the beginning. The Word of life. That same life appeared in flesh and was heard, touched and seen. John is testifying to that same eternal life that was from the beginning. (Jesus the Son) God was the Logos. Clearly the Logos has the Fathers nature found in Him and not His own and is all that the Father is and He and the Father are "one". We read that Col 1:19; Hebrews 1:3

The only thing that doesn’t have a physical body is the Spirit of the Father. His Spirit proceeds from Himself. From the location He resides in heaven.
The Spirit of the Father is His power, wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
The Father imparts those things to whomever He wills.
And those things are not physical things, but come from the God who has a physical body.
Word is not something physical either. So it is something that comes from the Father also. Like wisdom or knowledge.
So it is by the Spirit of the Father we have word, power, knowledge, wisdom and understanding.
Word encompasses all of those things. All that is God and from God.
To say the word was made flesh therefore encompasses all those things that is God. And it would come by His Spirit.

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

As this is under the 'apologetic' threads, I'm not clear on 'why' there needs to be a question asked to be a worthwhile discussion of the issue brought up here. I've always seen apologetics as not so much asking questions, but more about teaching what God's word says, or supporting such teachings as are found in the Scriptures.

I do apologize as this thread has gone waaaaay beyond since your post.

God bless,
Ted

This thread was originally posted in the Q&A Forum and later moved.

 

[Free]

Jesus was a Jew, all twelve disciples were Jews, Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. In fact, while Christianity is declining among the gentiles, as religious belief and church attendance are at historic low among Gen Z, it has been burgeoning in Israel and many Jewish communities in other countries. Therefore I wasn’t equivocating at all, Jewish people are not only God’s people, but the future of God’s people!

Yes, it was the fallacy of equivocation, because you made an argument with one definition of "God's people" and when I addressed that, you then responded with an argument using a different definition.

“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” Someone who denies the deity of Jesus is still a fellow brother or sister as long as they testify of God’s miraculous work.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You previously stated: "any doctrine or teaching such as Runningman’s that denies Jesus’s deity is obviously false, that sufficiently separates the true from the false." You believe that Runningman believes in a false Jesus, and Paul says that belief in another Jesus is error.

Jesus and John say that it is by believing in the name of Jesus that one is saved (John 1:12; . By "in the name" is meant "the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title" (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament).

You first. What question did I “beg”?

I suspect you don't understand what the fallacy of begging the question is. I've pointed it out and explained it before several times, so I see no need to do so again.

While I pointed out that’s exactly what’s happening in this discussion, that’s the very nature of the discussion, we’ve formed different identity groups around different doctrines, and you assume other people who don’t conform to your doctrine are nonbelievers, so how is it irrelevant?

I have also explained this before. Why do I have to keep repeating explanations? You need to learn to follow discussions and the various points being made, even if it means going back through the posts to follow the flow of each particular point.

It isn't relevant because we are talking about the nature of Jesus, which divides believers from unbelievers. And, as I have also pointed out before, that is not "my" doctrine, that has been the doctrine of the Church for a very long time. We are not talking about just believers who are arguing about who is the true leader and head of a particular church, which is what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor.

Besides, as I pointed out before, you did the very same thing, when you said "that denying Jesus is God in the flesh is a false teaching." It's interesting that you not only didn't address that argument in my post, you simply just repeated your argument that condemns you as well.

That question was UNEQUIVOCALLY answered with Lev. 26:44-45. You think it’s a red herring because you’re influenced by replacement theology, that the gentile church, specifically the white Europeans have replaced Israel, Jews can’t be Christians.

Utterly irrelevant. One more instance of misrepresenting what I believe and you will be removed from this discussion. In no way whatsoever do I believe in replacement theology. I have clearly stated before (again needing to repeat myself) that Jews are saved the same way as everyone else.

No I’m not. Believers are deceived all the time, Jesus warned that even the elect may be deceived by rampant false teachings, that doesn’t make them unbelievers.

The only argument I’m contradicting is yours.

Again, begging the question. To believe in a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible is not merely a case of a believer being deceived by a false teaching; it is to not be a believer in the first place.

You claimed it’s “between truth and lies”, so I ask you what Pilate asked Jesus - “what is truth?” Is the gospel of John truer than the synoptic gospels or vice versa? Why are there two versions of his genealogy and more two accounts of his resurrection, some details even appear to be contradictory? In your black and white thinking, it’s “truth vs lies”, so one must be true while other must be false, right? That’s why I meant by telling you that only God himself has the WHOLE truth, for he alone is omniscient, whatever truth you think you have is partial truth, other people’s partial truths which is not same as yours are not necessarily lies.

It is between truth and lies. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. Of course only God has the whole truth; I have never said otherwise, nor have I once claimed that I have all the truth. There are some things in Scripture which are very clear, such as monotheism, the literal, physical death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and that believers will spend eternity with him. There are other things which are not so clear, which is precisely why we discuss and debate and study--it increases our understanding and is more likely to get us closer to the truth.

I could be wrong about the deity of Jesus, of course, but I do not think I am, and have yet to see any other reasonable position about the nature of God which takes the whole revelation adequately into account.

 

[Hopeful 2]

There are no persons who don’t have a physical body, from the father on down.

I don't know what you mean by "the father on down"

The text says the word became flesh. What the word was, was made flesh.

No, it says the Word became flesh.
What the Word was took on skin and bones.
The Word is a being and His name should be capitalized.

It doesn’t speak of an immaterial person joining himself, but not mixing, with a body.

The Word wasn't immaterial.
When He took on flesh, He gestated in Mary and was born of her.

 

[Randy]

The only thing that doesn’t have a physical body is the Spirit of the Father. His Spirit proceeds from Himself. From the location He resides in heaven.
The Spirit of the Father is His power, wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
The Father imparts those things to whomever He wills.
And those things are not physical things, but come from the God who has a physical body.
Word is not something physical either. So it is something that comes from the Father also. Like wisdom or knowledge.
So it is by the Spirit of the Father we have word, power, knowledge, wisdom and understanding.
Word encompasses all of those things. All that is God and from God.
To say the word was made flesh therefore encompasses all those things that is God. And it would come by His Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father is the person of the Father just as your spirit is you. When sent in Jesus's name into a believer that same Spirit conveys the will and presence of the Son and is seen as the person of the Son.

 

[LeviR]

I don't know what you mean by "the father on down"

No, it says the Word became flesh.
What the Word was took on skin and bones.
The Word is a being and His name should be capitalized.

The Word wasn't immaterial.
When He took on flesh, He gestated in Mary and was born of her.

See posts 668

 

[Hopeful 2]

See posts 668

You are confusing "word" for "The Word"...who was with God and was God. (John 1:1)
A "word" is something spoken.
The "Word" was a facet of God Almighty.
The Word put on skin and bones and was born of a woman.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, it was the fallacy of equivocation, because you made an argument with one definition of "God's people" and when I addressed that, you then responded with an argument using a different definition

Are Jews God’s people or not? If yes, the I didn’t change any definition, Paul explicitly stated there’s no Jew or Greek, all are one inChrist; if not, you’re into replacement theology.

Actually, I could question you on your definition of “person” in the context of “three coequal, coeternal persons” - does “person” herein have a human form in the flesh? Since God is “spirit” and “not a man”, Holy Spirit is apparently only spirit, both are godly in nature, only Jesus is both God and man, so which one is it? You can say all theee are God in nature, but not all three are human in nature, only Jesus is.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You previously stated: "any doctrine or teaching such as Runningman’s that denies Jesus’s deity is obviously false, that sufficiently separates the true from the false." You believe that @Runningman believes in a false Jesus, and Paul says that belief in another Jesus is error.

But is he still a fellow brother in Christ? Or chaff among the wheats? Again, Jesus defined a fellow brother or sister as one who does the will of God (Matt. 12:50), he never denounced anybody for a theological error, quite the contrary, he forgave those who spoke against him.

Jesus and John say that it is by believing in the name of Jesus that one is saved (John 1:12; . By "in the name" is meant "the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title" (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament).

And that’s why I asked for a personal testimony, because flesh and blood do not reveal the true nature of Jesus, only God does, according to Jesus himself, and you dismissed it as irrelevant, so don’t blame me.

I suspect you don't understand what the fallacy of begging the question is. I've pointed it out and explained it before several times, so I see no need to do so again.

Neither do I need to explain to you why this is really about identity politics with the labeling of “Trinitarian” and “non-Trinitarian”, and why it’s toxic and divisive.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I have also explained this before. Why do I have to keep repeating explanations? You need to learn to follow discussions and the various points being made, even if it means going back through the posts to follow the flow of each particular point.

Did Jesus follow the discussion of “is it lawful to pay poll tax” (Matt. 22:15-22)? Which brother’s wife will she be In resurrection among the seven brothers (Matt. 22:23-33)? By what authority did He preach the gospel (Lk. 20:1-8)? Again, I’m just following my lord and savior’s example. You need to learn how to flip the script and take control of the narrative, instead of passively and instinctively reacting.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It isn't relevant because we are talking about the nature of Jesus, which divides believers from unbelievers. And, as I have also pointed out before, that is not "my" doctrine, that has been the doctrine of the Church for a very long time. We are not talking about just believers who are arguing about who is the true leader and head of a particular church, which is what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor.

Besides, as I pointed out before, you did the very same thing, when you said "that denying Jesus is God in the flesh is a false teaching." It's interesting that you not only didn't address that argument in my post, you simply just repeated your argument that condemns you as well.

That's not what the OP proposed. OP merely pointed out that trinitarians and non trinitarians have different points of view, neither one is denounced as "unbelivers" while the other affirmed as true believers, you're one who's picking the trinitarian side and denouncing non trinitarians as "unbelievers", and you're falsely calling it a talk about "the nature of Jesus".

Utterly irrelevant. One more instance of misrepresenting what I believe and you will be removed from this discussion. In no way whatsoever do I believe in replacement theology. I have clearly stated before (again needing to repeat myself) that Jews are saved the same way as everyone else.

Again, either you truly believe that Jews are God's people or not. If you do, then what I posted is utterly relevant. You asked about God's people, I faithfully answered with the most relevant Scripture portion. Never have I implied that "God's people" are limited to gentile Christians.

Again, begging the question. To believe in a Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible is not merely a case of a believer being deceived by a false teaching; it is to not be a believer in the first place.

Then why did Jesus specifically warn about it? That "even the elect" may be deceived? Oh, they were "not be a believer in the first place", so they are not actually the "elect"? That's a typical Calvinistic view which I don't align with.

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. (Matt. 24:23-25)

It is between truth and lies. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. Of course only God has the whole truth; I have never said otherwise, nor have I once claimed that I have all the truth.

Then what "truth" are you talking about? You're the one who's begging the question. Truth of Jesus according to the bible? Well the bible itself stated that Jesus had done many, many more great things beyond what's recorded in the bible, and you said you agreed on that, so what about the rest, such as the example in Acts 20:35? You didn't address any of that.

Also, "truth and lies" is a false dichotomy because there're lots of gray area in between. Adding or substracting contents will disqualify you from inheriting eternal life, as John warned at the end of Revelation, how so? Neither is bearing false witness that contradicts or refutes anything written in the book, so neither is technically "lying", but by God's criteria, misinformation and omission are as wrong as lying.

Even if nothing is added or substracted, in a biased report of a truth, certain part of the truth could be greatly exaggerated, while other parts are downplayed, which presents a distorted version of the truth that misleads the listener, a good example is the 10 spies' report about the Land of Canaan, they blew the part about giants out of proportion. Folks are doing that every day on this very forum, taking certain verses out of context to back their own beliefs. So it's definitely not as simple as "truth vs lies". It's hard for you to understand because you don't seem to know any of these intricacies, you're stuck with your oversimplified binary view.

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)

I could be wrong about the deity of Jesus, of course, but I do not think I am, and have yet to see any other reasonable position about the nature of God which takes the whole revelation adequately into account.

Really? I followed your explanation about the Holy Spirit with some reasonable doubts, you didn't reply. You've been pounding me with the tirade about "deity of Jesus" the whole time even though I'm been with you on that the whole time. I was once accused of presenting this false dichotomy of "Jesus in heaven" vs "Jesus in our heart", while nobody ever elaborated on that.

 

[Free]

Are Jews God’s people or not? If yes, the I didn’t change any definition, Paul explicitly stated there’s no Jew or Greek, all are one inChrist; if not, you’re into replacement theology.

I’m not addressing this again. You committed the fallacy of equivocation. Please go study what that means and then go back and look at what you did, as I pointed out.

Actually, I could question you on your definition of “person” in the context of “three coequal, coeternal persons” - does “person” herein have a human form in the flesh? Since God is “spirit” and “not a man”, Holy Spirit is apparently only spirit, both are godly in nature, only Jesus is both God and man, so which one is it?

You could, but then that would betray a lack of study, since “person” has been used in regards to the Trinity for well over one thousand years

You can say all theee are God in nature, but not all three are human in nature, only Jesus is.

That goes without saying.

But is he still a fellow brother in Christ? Or chaff among the wheats?

The latter. Again, as I have repeatedly pointed out, who Jesus is actually matters. To put one’s faith in Christ foe salvation means they must put their faith in the Christ of the Bible, not a false Christ which leads to a false gospel.

Again, Jesus defined a fellow brother or sister as one who does the will of God (Matt. 12:50), he never denounced anybody for a theological error, quite the contrary, he forgave those who spoke against him.

Context, context, context.

And that’s why I asked for a personal testimony, because flesh and blood do not reveal the true nature of Jesus, only God does, according to Jesus himself, and you dismissed it as irrelevant, so don’t blame me.

It is irrelevant because you are taking things out of context. You’re actually completely undermining the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Neither do I need to explain to you why this is really about identity politics with the labeling of “Trinitarian” and “non-Trinitarian”, and why it’s toxic and divisive.

It isn’t. It’s no different than monotheism and tritheism or polytheism. They’re just words that sum up a set of beliefs.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I’m not addressing this again. You committed the fallacy of equivocation. Please go study what that means and then go back and look at what you did, as I pointed out.

I'm not asking you to, but please address the definition of "person" in the trinity doctrine since you've been holding it so near an dear.

You could, but then that would betray a lack of study, since “person” has been used in regards to the Trinity for well over one thousand years

Hmm, I don't remember any sighting of such use in the bible. There're "Lord" and "Father", there're "Son of God" and "Son of Man", there're "Helper" and "Advocate", but where's "person" for these supposed three "persons"?

That goes without saying.

Then is "person" therein necessarily of human nature or not? Don't be guilty of what you've been accusing me.

The latter. Again, as I have repeatedly pointed out, who Jesus is actually matters. To put one’s faith in Christ foe salvation means they must put their faith in the Christ of the Bible, not a false Christ which leads to a false gospel.

It isn’t. It’s no different than monotheism and tritheism or polytheism. They’re just words that sum up a set of beliefs.

You're alienating our fellow brothers and sisters who're unfortunately deceived by false teaching just because they hold a different view, you're maliciously putting labels on them which they don't deserve. If you don't forgive, neither will your heavenly father forgive you.

Context, context, context.

It is irrelevant because you are taking things out of context. You’re actually completely undermining the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

All I can see here is a text upon text of cons.

 

[Free]

I'm not asking you to, but please address the definition of "person" in the trinity doctrine since you've been holding it so near an dear.

Did you not read what I wrote, that it has been used by the Church for well over one thousand years?

"And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

It is just an English word that best approximates the distinctions within the Trinity.

Hmm, I don't remember any sighting of such use in the bible. There're "Lord" and "Father", there're "Son of God" and "Son of Man", there're "Helper" and "Advocate", but where's "person" for these supposed three "persons"?

Which is not at all relevant. This is one of the fallacies anti-Trinitarians use. I have given ample evidence which supports this already.

Then is "person" therein necessarily of human nature or not?

Of course not.

You're alienating our fellow brothers and sisters who're unfortunately deceived by false teaching just because they hold a different view, you're maliciously putting labels on them which they don't deserve. If you don't forgive, neither will your heavenly father forgive you.

Again, you're fallaciously begging the question by presuming that persons who deny the deity of Jesus, indeed who strongly oppose the deity of Jesus, are "fellow brothers and sisters."

All I can see here is a text upon text of cons.

That's one way to avoid addressing things.

For the first dismissal, this is what you had stated:

"Again, Jesus defined a fellow brother or sister as one who does the will of God (Matt. 12:50), he never denounced anybody for a theological error, quite the contrary, he forgave those who spoke against him."

I responded: "Context, context, context."

What do I mean? First, you don't even define what Jesus means by "one who does the will of God." Could it be, or at least include, John 6:40:

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (ESV)

Second, that only defines one who has become "a fellow brother or sister," so we must look for how one becomes a fellow brother or sister. For instance:

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Would that also be why John states, in his prologue, which is him introducing Christ to his readers

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Notice that he repeats what Jesus said. Who is a "child of God," a "fellow brother or sister"? It is only one who believes "in his name," which is to say, "the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title" (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament). That would necessarily include his deity and hence Paul's concern with the Corinthians accepting teaching of "another Jesus."


As to the second dismissal, you stated: "And that’s why I asked for a personal testimony, because flesh and blood do not reveal the true nature of Jesus, only God does, according to Jesus himself, and you dismissed it as irrelevant, so don’t blame me."

I responded: "It is irrelevant because you are taking things out of context. You’re actually completely undermining the inspiration and authority of Scripture."

And, just how do you know that Jesus said flesh and blood do not reveal his true nature? Did Jesus reveal that to you out of thin air or did you happen to read it in the Bible? Did Peter or any of the disciples have access to the same Bible, so that they knew what they were supposed to say? Can you find any other instance of that being repeated in the NT outside of the gospels? What is the purpose of the Bible? How does God mainly speak to us?

So, to argue that only God reveals the true nature of Jesus, is true in a sense, but to say he does so apart from what he has revealed to us in Scripture, is to completely undermine the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is to say that we cannot trust what it says, that God has communicated in such a way that we cannot know what he says, and instead we must rely on something subjective.

But what does Scripture say?

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
2Ti 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

2Pe 1:3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, (ESV)

That is, the Bible is sufficient to know about God and about Jesus, and in so knowing about them, come to know them and not a false god or false christ.