Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[nChrist]

Hebrews 1:1-3 KJV God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
By Matthew Henry, 1662-1714

PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

Hebrews 1:1-3

God spake to his ancient people at sundry times, through successive generations, and in divers manners, as he thought proper; sometimes by personal directions, sometimes by dreams, sometimes by visions, sometimes by Divine influences on the minds of the prophets. The gospel revelation is excellent above the former; in that it is a revelation which God has made by his Son. In beholding the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ, we behold the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Father, John 14:7; the fulness of the Godhead dwells, not typically, or in a figure, but really, in him. When, on the fall of man, the world was breaking to pieces under the wrath and curse of God, the Son of God, undertaking the work of redemption, sustained it by his almighty power and goodness. From the glory of the person and office of Christ, we proceed to the glory of his grace. The glory of His person and nature, gave to his sufferings such merit as was a full satisfaction to the honour of God, who suffered an infinite injury and affront by the sins of men. We never can be thankful enough that God has in so many ways, and with such increasing clearness, spoken to us fallen sinners concerning salvation. That he should by himself cleanse us from our sins is a wonder of love beyond our utmost powers of admiration, gratitude, and praise.

__________________________
​

Titus 2:11-15 KJV For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
By Matthew Henry, 1662-1714

PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

Titus 2:11-15

The doctrine of grace and salvation by the gospel, is for all ranks and conditions of men. It teaches to forsake sin; to have no more to do with it. An earthly, sensual conversation suits not a heavenly calling. It teaches to make conscience of that which is good. We must look to God in Christ, as the object of our hope and worship. A gospel conversation must be a godly conversation. See our duty in a very few words; denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly, righteously, and godly, notwithstanding all snares, temptations, corrupt examples, ill usage, and what remains of sin in the believer's heart, with all their hinderances. It teaches to look for the glories of another world. At, and in, the glorious appearing of Christ, the blessed hope of Christians will be complete: To bring us to holiness and happiness was the end of Christ's death. Jesus Christ, that great God and our Saviour, who saves not only as God, much less as Man alone; but as God-man, two natures in one person. He loved us, and gave himself for us; and what can we do less than love and give up ourselves to him! Redemption from sin and sanctification of the nature go together, and make a peculiar people unto God, free from guilt and condemnation, and purified by the Holy Spirit. All Scripture is profitable. Here is what will furnish for all parts of duty, and the right discharge of them. Let us inquire whether our whole dependence is placed upon that grace which saves the lost, pardons the guilty, and sanctifies the unclean. And the further we are removed from boasting of fancied good works, or trusting in them, so that we glory in Christ alone, the more zealous shall we be to abound in real good works.

__________________________
​

Titus 3:1-7 KJV Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. 3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
By Matthew Henry, 1662-1714

PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

Titus 3:1-7

Spiritual privileges do not make void or weaken, but confirm civil duties. Mere good words and good meanings are not enough without good works. They were not to be quarrelsome, but to show meekness on all occasions, not toward friends only, but to all men, though with wisdom, James 3:13. And let this text teach us how wrong it is for a Christian to be churlish to the worst, weakest, and most abject. The servants of sin have many masters, their lusts hurry them different ways; pride commands one thing, covetousness another. Thus they are hateful, deserving to be hated. It is the misery of sinners, that they hate one another; and it is the duty and happiness of saints to love one another. And we are delivered out of our miserable condition, only by the mercy and free grace of God, the merit and sufferings of Christ, and the working of his Spirit. God the Father is God our Saviour. He is the fountain from which the Holy Spirit flows, to teach, regenerate, and save his fallen creatures; and this blessing comes to mankind through Christ. The spring and rise of it, is the kindness and love of God to man. Love and grace have, through the Spirit, great power to change and turn the heart to God. Works must be in the saved, but are not among the causes of their salvation. A new principle of grace and holiness is wrought, which sways, and governs, and makes the man a new creature. Most pretend they would have heaven at last, yet they care not for holiness now; they would have the end without the beginning. Here is the outward sign and seal thereof in baptism, called therefore the washing of regeneration. The work is inward and spiritual; this is outwardly signified and sealed in this ordinance. Slight not this outward sign and seal; yet rest not in the outward washing, but look to the answer of a good conscience, without which the outward washing will avail nothing. The worker therein is the Spirit of God; it is the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Through him we mortify sin, perform duty, walk in God's ways; all the working of the Divine life in us, and the fruits of righteousness without, are through this blessed and holy Spirit. The Spirit and his saving gifts and graces, come through Christ, as a Saviour, whose undertaking and work are to bring to grace and glory. Justification, in the gospel sense, is the free forgiveness of a sinner; accepting him as righteous through the righteousness of Christ received by faith. God, in justifying a sinner in the way of the gospel, is gracious to him, yet just to himself and his law. As forgiveness is through a perfect righteousness, and satisfaction is made to justice by Christ, it cannot be merited by the sinner himself. Eternal life is set before us in the promise; the Spirit works faith in us, and hope of that life; faith and hope bring it near, and fill with joy in expectation of it.

Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4​

 

[Der Alte]

Neither Jesus himself nor the later writings of the apostles mention or argue in favor of the Trinity. Jesus most frequently refers to God as his Father (as any of us would), and although John reports Jesus as saying that "I and the Father are one.", within the context, it should be clear that Jesus is saying that he is acting according to will of God (the Father). There are passages to support Jesus status of the son of man and the son of God, but that does not make him God. Immediately preceding the Great Commission, Jesus says all power on heaven and earth has been given to me. This indicates that God has given Jesus the power to exercise His (God's) will but that Jesus himself is not actually God (though the all power statement would seem to elevate his status above that of even Moses and Elijah).[

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {WHO,} εν {IN [THE]} μορφη {FORM} θεου {OF GOD} υπαρχων {SUBSISTING,} ουχ {NOT} αρπαγμον {RAPINE} ηγησατο το {ESTEEMED IT} ειναι {TO BE} ισα{EQUAL} θεω {WITH GOD;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. “Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

How does a mere human being, “become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

Matt 28:18-19 occurs after Philippians 2:6-11 when "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"

Mat 28:18-19
(18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

 

[Der Alte]

*excerpt* Hope you don't mind. This addresses perfectly those passages that you have presented. There are even further explanations at the link if you are interested.
------------------
BiblicalUnitarian.com - Content

"Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God."

Except that NEVER does the author of those other texts place the tense in contrast to genesthai.

Usually the non Trin arguements totally leave this out . . . probably because it is a deal breaker and basically crushes the uninformed arguement that you responded with.

And let us also note that the copy/paste from unitarians-я-us.com is a logical fallacy, "All Trinitarians translators are biased and bad." And of course the unitarian website by some unknown does not reflect their bias. If anyone believes that I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell them. Wonder why there are no Unitarian scholars writing grammars, lexicons, and Bible versions?

 

[nChrist]

There are some here who appear not to have read the Holy Bible - much less understand it. Yet, they are trying to lead others into rejection of God The Father, God The Son (Jesus Christ), and God The Holy Spirit.

It takes gross butchery of the Holy Bible to attempt to deny The Holy Trinity and the absolute fact that Jesus Christ is God. It also takes gross misunderstanding for the attempt.

Bluntly, there is no reason, logic, or scholarship involved in the attempt to deny the core of The Holy Bible and of Christianity. There is no understanding of even basic Bible doctrines. The understanding is so bad that it almost appears that you make things up as you go.

What do you call your religion or church? This might help us to help you if we knew. Our only motive is to help you and others suffering under the same misconceptions. This thread, "Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God", posted on a Christian Forum is very bizarre. It's also untrue and without foundation of any kind.

Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4​

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I even ask a simple question about John 14:28 so trinitarians can better explain their position. Yet, not a single trinitarian is apparently brave enough to answer it. I think it is because they reject the blatant truth of John 14:28 (that God the Father is greater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition. They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.

I have already finished gathering Scripture passages from the rest of the NT which clearly show a distinction between God and Jesus. I could have posted them days ago, but I see no rush. I will post the rest this week.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

The following seems to be one of the most misquoted and misunderstood Scripture verse in the entire Bible.

"I and My Father are one.” John 10:30​

2ducklow has clearly illustrated through the context of the gospel of John that Jesus here actually means that he and God are one in purpose and not one in substance.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I even ask a simple question about John 14:28 so trinitarians can better explain their position. Yet, not a single trinitarian is apparently brave enough to answer it. I think it is because they reject the blatant truth of John 14:28 (that God the Father is greater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition. They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.

I have already finished gathering Scripture passages from the rest of the NT which clearly show a distinction between God and Jesus. I could have posted them days ago, but I see no rush. I will post the rest this week.

John 14:28 (that God the Father is g

Ireater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition.

Actually pretty easy. The term "greater" is meizon . . . and refers to position. If Jesus had meant that the Father was somehow "better" or qualitatively supreme to Himself, the term used would have been kreitton.

Dont mean to burst ur bubble, but it reconciles rather easily.

They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.

it really was too easy, please tell me u have something better. Positional superiority is affirmed of the Father in any healthy trinitarian theology.

which clearly show a distinction between God and Jesus.

Hmm . . . do u really KNOW what Trinity theology teaches? Distinction is something that is ALWAYS included . . . it is SEPARATION (complete and utter disconnection) that is rejected as it would lead to a form of polytheism.

U may want to REALLY try to GET Trinity theology (even if u dont believe it ) before u attack its concepts . . . cuz if u dont get it, u really r not attacking what it teaches anyway, but are throwing stones at something that is NOT what we believe ANYWAY . . . it is called building a "strawman" arguement. At least KNOW what we teach and believe and u can legitimately critique at that point and u will come off like you have done ur homework

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The following seems to be one of the most misquoted and misunderstood Scripture verse in the entire Bible.

"I and My Father are one.” John 10:30
​

2ducklow has clearly illustrated through the context of the gospel of John that Jesus here actually means that he and God are one in purpose and not one in substance.

Yeah I agree . . . it is NOT a text that teaches Trinity. I espouse Trinity, but I am fair with the text. My fellows who r of the same mind as me often use this passage (and others) wrongly.

There are MUCH better and clearer ones

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Actually pretty easy. The term "greater" is meizon . . . and refers to position. If Jesus had meant that the Father was somehow "better" or qualitatively supreme to Himself, the term used would have been kreitton.

Dont mean to burst ur bubble, but it reconciles rather easily.





it really was too easy, please tell me u have something better. Positional superiority is affirmed of the Father in any healthy trinitarian theology.

Oh I see, so greater doesn't really mean greater. According to you they are the same, equal or co-equal despite Jesus never claiming such.

Hmm . . . do u really KNOW what Trinity theology teaches? Distinction is something that is ALWAYS included . . . it is SEPARATION (complete and utter disconnection) that is rejected as it would lead to a form of polytheism.

U may want to REALLY try to GET Trinity theology (even if u dont believe it ) before u attack its concepts . . . cuz if u dont get it, u really r not attacking what it teaches anyway, but are throwing stones at something that is NOT what we believe ANYWAY . . . it is called building a "strawman" arguement. At least KNOW what we teach and believe and u can legitimately critique at that point and u will come off like you have done ur homework

I say all this as a former trinitarian. I know very well what the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity entails. I used to argue for it so I am very familiar with it. I believed in the trinity for many years and was blind to the truth because I used the lenses of man-made tradition to interpret the Scriptures.

The trinity is a doctrine developed over time by man. All of the early Roman church fathers which speak of the trinity are not authoritative. They are not Scripture yet people quote them as if their word is Scripture. Not only that... I see that people like to pick and choose what doctrines of the early church fathers they agree with and they ignore the other beliefs of the early Roman church fathers of which they do not agree. So essentially, the early roman church fathers are authoritative where one agrees with them and they are not authoritative where one disagrees with them. How convenient.

The trinity was not fully formulated by man in a form we recognize today until at least the Athanasian Creed was written many centuries after the time of Christ.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Oh I see, so greater doesn't really mean greater. According to you they are the same, equal or co-equal despite Jesus never claiming such.






I say all this as a former trinitarian. I know very well what the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity entails. I used to argue for it so I am very familiar with it. I believed in the trinity for many years and was blind to the truth because I used the lenses of man-made tradition to interpret the Scriptures.

The trinity is a doctrine developed over time by man. All of the early Roman church fathers which speak of the trinity are not authoritative. They are not Scripture yet people quote them as if their word is Scripture. Not only that... I see that people like to pick and choose what doctrines of the early church fathers they agree with and they ignore the other beliefs of the early Roman church fathers of which they do not agree. So essentially, the early roman church fathers are authoritative where one agrees with them and they are not authoritative where one disagrees with them. How convenient.

The trinity was not fully formulated by man in a form we recognize today until at least the Athanasian Creed was written many centuries after the time of Christ.

Oh I see, so greater doesn't really mean greater.

Well, greater is an ENGLISH term, and the word that you cite in the passage is a GREEK term, so though the word "greater" in English can be used to translate the term, as English is so vast and terms can mean a variety of things depending on context, the CONCEPT of ontological superiority that you are trying to attribute to the term is not necessary in the word.

Had John wanted to say what u r trying to make him say, he very well could have with the term krietton. As he did NOT use this term . . . your contention cannot be maintained. Shouldnt stick in ur throat . . . just dont use that passage again as it cant be used to maintain ur contention. Just like a Trinitarian shouldnt use the "father and I are one" passage . . . cause that isnt what the text is conveying. Easy enough. Honesty w/ the text is not hard

According to you they are the same, equal or co-equal despite Jesus never claiming such.

To me? Hmm . . . they r the same in ontology, sure, but not in position. Pretty standard Trinitarian concept

I know very well what the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity entails.

Apparently not tho, because u r using language that entails concepts NOT in trinitarian theology.

The trinity is a doctrine developed over time by man. All of the early Roman church fathers which speak of the trinity are not authoritative. They are not Scripture yet people quote them as if their word is Scripture. Not only that... I see that people like to pick and choose what doctrines of the early church fathers they agree with and they ignore the other beliefs of the early Roman church fathers of which they do not agree. So essentially, the early roman church fathers are authoritative where one agrees with them and they are not authoritative where one disagrees with them. How convenient.

Personally I dont think that they are authoritative. I dont point to them as authority on anything . . . the only thing that they do show is that these issues are not new, and that these thoughts are common as men reflect on the scriptures.

The trinity was not fully formulated by man in a form we recognize today until at least the Athanasian Creed was written many centuries after the time of Christ

That doesnt mean it isnt true . . . so what? False dilemma.

 

[razzelflabben]

To be clear, neither Jesus himself nor the later writings of the apostles mention or argue in favor of the Trinity. Jesus most frequently refers to God as his Father (as any of us would), and although John reports Jesus as saying that "I and the Father are one.", within the context, it should be clear that Jesus is saying that he is acting according to will of God (the Father). In addition, immediately preceding the Great Commission, Jesus says all power on heaven and earth has been given to me. To me this indicates that God has given Jesus the power to excercise His (God's) will but that Jesus himself is not actually God (though the all power statement would seem to elevate his status above that of even Moses and Elijah).

Okay, I asked this before and got no response so I'll try it one more time. If Jesus was the son of God, and Mary, His mother was human, wouldn't that make Him both man and God?

 

[Der Alte]

The following seems to be one of the most misquoted and misunderstood Scripture verse in the entire Bible.

"I and My Father are one.” John 10:30​

2ducklow has clearly illustrated through the context of the gospel of John that Jesus here actually means that he and God are one in purpose and not one in substance.

The problem with this argument is, Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said! If Jesus had intended to say, as is being argued, "that he and God are one in purpose and not one in substance." That is exactly what he would have said. Then we would not have people who belong to post 19th century false religious groups, trying to twist the Bible and tell us what he "really meant."

 

[Der Alte]

I even ask a simple question about John 14:28 so trinitarians can better explain their position. Yet, not a single trinitarian is apparently brave enough to answer it. I think it is because they reject the blatant truth of John 14:28 (that God the Father is greater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition. They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.

I have already finished gathering Scripture passages from the rest of the NT which clearly show a distinction between God and Jesus. I could have posted them days ago, but I see no rush. I will post the rest this week.

And I answered your simple question in this post Click link. Ignoring responses and making false claims that nobody responded will not make them go away!

And at the end of the day when you have posted all your scriptures, my posts citing 62 which address or refer to Jesus as God will still be unaddressed. And this listing of 62 scripture have been on this board long before you posted your first proof text.

36 N.T. verses which address or refer to Jesus as God

26 O.T. verses which address or refer to Jesus as God, in the N.T.

These scriptures ain't going away and I ain't going away.

 

[razzelflabben]

For a bit more about wording and ideas presented in scripture and my question about God being Father to Jesus, read Isaiah 51:1-2....if Jesus Father is God, how is He not God? If Mary is His mother, how is He not man? How is it illogical for Jesus to be fully man and fully God? When it comes to scripture and the speak of the day, it seems pretty logical that Jesus was fully man and fully God. Please explain how that is not the case in light of Isaiah 51:1-2 Got to love Isaiah, he tells us so much about our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]I say all this as a former trinitarian. I know very well what the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity entails. I used to argue for it so I am very familiar with it. I believed in the trinity for many years and was blind to the truth because I used the lenses of man-made tradition to interpret the Scriptures.[ . . . ]

In this post you claim to have been a Trinitarian and claim to have argued the doctrine for many years.

If that is true why is it you do not know how Trinitarians respond to the question about the father being greater than Jesus, in the post below? If you had ever been a Trinitarian, arguing the doctrine, then you should know the Trinitarian answer to the question and how to refute the answer. You apparently don't know either one.

[ . . . ]I even ask a simple question about John 14:28 so trinitarians can better explain their position. Yet, not a single trinitarian is apparently brave enough to answer it. I think it is because they reject the blatant truth of John 14:28 (that God the Father is greater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition. They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.[ . . . ]

I believe there is no such thing as an ex-Trinitarian. How can someone supposedly have a life altering encounter with the King of Kings walk with him for "many years" then suddenly realize he is the wrong Jesus? If someone is following Jesus, the holy spirit will not let them walk in darkness for "many years."

 

[Superfast]

is Jesus coequal with the father? no verse say he is.
Is God the Father better than anyone? no verse say he is.
does Jesus have the same nature as the father? no verse says he does.
does Jesus have the same essence as the father? no verse says he does.
is god the father a person? no verse says he is.
is god the father greater than Jesus, scripture says he is.


So, since no scripture says the Father is better than anyone, and trinitarians conclude that Jesus is coequal with the Father cannot be negated by john 10.30 because no verse says the Father is better than Jesus. Then since no verse says the Father is better than any of the saints, and since one day we will be like Jesus and see him as he is, we too must be coequal with the Father. Using trinitarian logic that is.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

is Jesus coequal with the father? no verse say he is.
Is God the Father better than anyone? no verse say he is.
does Jesus have the same nature as the father? no verse says he does.
does Jesus have the same essence as the father? no verse says he does.
is god the father a person? no verse says he is.
is god the father greater than Jesus, scripture says he is.

is Jesus coequal with the father? no verse say he is.
does Jesus have the same nature as the father? no verse says he does.
does Jesus have the same essence as the father? no verse says he does.

Wrong. John 1:3 and 8:58 BOTH ascribe UNCREATEDNESS and ETERNALITY to Jesus.

That makes Him equal and of the same nature and essence.

Further, passages like Thomas' exclamation attribute "o theos" to Jesus which is the TITLE: THE GOD (using the definite article) . . . which makes Him equal.

as for the personhood of the Father . . . that is just silly. He speaks, He has a will, etc. The attributes of personhood are His (not meaning He is human, but that He is selfaware and demonstrates the qualities of personality) all over the Scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

is Jesus coequal with the father? no verse say he is.
Is God the Father better than anyone? no verse say he is.
does Jesus have the same nature as the father? no verse says he does.
does Jesus have the same essence as the father? no verse says he does.
is god the father a person? no verse says he is.
is god the father greater than Jesus, scripture says he is.

Wrong. John 1:3 and 8:58 BOTH ascribe UNCREATEDNESS and ETERNALITY to Jesus.

That makes Him equal and of the same nature and essence.

Further, passages like Thomas' exclamation attribute "o theos" to Jesus which is the TITLE: THE GOD (using the definite article) . . . which makes Him equal.

as for the personhood of the Father . . . that is just silly. He speaks, He has a will, etc. The attributes of personhood are His (not meaning He is human, but that He is self aware and demonstrates the qualities of personality) all over the Scripture.

And this passage specifically addresses the equality of Jesus with the father.

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {WHO,} εν {IN [THE]} μορφη {FORM} θεου {OF GOD} υπαρχων {SUBSISTING,} ουχ {NOT} αρπαγμον {RAPINE} ηγησατο το {ESTEEMED IT} ειναι {TO BE} ισα {EQUAL} θεω {WITH GOD;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. “Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

How does a mere human being, “become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

 

[Hentenza]

I even ask a simple question about John 14:28 so trinitarians can better explain their position. Yet, not a single trinitarian is apparently brave enough to answer it. I think it is because they reject the blatant truth of John 14:28 (that God the Father is greater than Jesus) which clearly does not harmonize with their man-made trinitarian tradition. They don't know how to reconcile it. They are forced to ignore it at all costs.

I have already finished gathering Scripture passages from the rest of the NT which clearly show a distinction between God and Jesus. I could have posted them days ago, but I see no rush. I will post the rest this week.

I have no problems with that verse. The object here is not for Jesus to compare His nature with that of the Father but His condition. John 14 makes that clear.

Tell me, is Jesus perfect?

 

[Superfast]

Oh I see, so greater doesn't really mean greater. According to you they are the same, equal or co-equal despite Jesus never claiming such.

I think Their argument is something like this that Jesus and the father are coequal like husband and wife. the husband isn't better than the wife, they are equal with different duties and functions. one flesh and one god. They need a scripture saying the Father is better than the son in order for the statement jesus made that his father is greater than him to preclude them being coequal. And since no scripture says the Father is better than anyone, they are on safe grounds. no scripture saying the father is better than anyone and no scripture saying the father is coequal with the son. they define what coequal means, since they invented it And to them coequal means not better. to them greater doesnt mean better. Was Stan the Man greater and or better than other ball players of his day? Was he equal to any other ball player? depends on how you define equal and better. Was Stan the Man greater than Rusty Staub? Depends on how one defines greater. Was Stan the Man equal to Rusty Staub? depends on what one means by equal.

I say all this as a former trinitarian. I know very well what the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity entails. I used to argue for it so I am very familiar with it. I believed in the trinity for many years and was blind to the truth because I used the lenses of man-made tradition to interpret the Scriptures.

Very interesting, I have struggled with understanding how a bible beliveing person could possibly believe the Trinity. this helps.

The trinity is a doctrine developed over time by man. All of the early Roman church fathers which speak of the trinity are not authoritative. They are not Scripture yet people quote them as if their word is Scripture. Not only that... I see that people like to pick and choose what doctrines of the early church fathers they agree with and they ignore the other beliefs of the early Roman church fathers of which they do not agree. So essentially, the early roman church fathers are authoritative where one agrees with them and they are not authoritative where one disagrees with them. How convenient.

The trinity was not fully formulated by man in a form we recognize today until at least the Athanasian Creed was written many centuries after the time of Christ.

So did you sorta equate what the early church christian writers said with correct theology or something when you were a trinitarian? (I refuse to call them fathers because the bible prohibits us from calling anyman Father (in a spiritual sense))
Seems some in here do.