Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

[OldShepherd]

I don't depend on scholars or scholarly works as I not only have degrees in the Biblical Languages, and can speak both languages (in addition to 14 others), so am able to judge the text and context myself.

However, if you need to view other "scholarly works" that address Titus 2:13, please note the Expositor's Greek Testament. Regarding Titus 2:13, we read (in part):

Let us read a bit further in your source Expositor's N.T.

In view of the fact that the most probable exegesis of Romans 9:5 is that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεός εὐλογητὸς, κ. τ. λ. refers to Christ, it cannot be said that ὁ μέγας θεός, as applied to Him, is un-Pauline. But the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disputable texts, but in the whole attitude of his soul towards Christ, and in the doctrine of the relation of Christ to mankind which is set forth in his epistles. St. Paul’s “declarations of the divinity of the Eternal Son” are not studied, as Ellicott admits that this would be if the R.V. rendering (our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ) be adopted. To this it may be added that the Versions, with the exception of the Aethiopic, agree with R.V.m. Ell. cites on the other side, of ante-Nicene writers, Clem. Alex., Protrept. § 7, and Hippolytus,—quoted by Wordsworth—besides the great bulk of the post-Nicene fathers. The text is one which would strike the eye of a reader to whose consciousness the Arian controversy was present; but it is safe to say that if it had read τοῦ σωτῆρος, the μεγάλου would have excited no comment. Consequently the papyri (all vii. A.D.) cited by J. H. Moulton (Grammar, vol. i. p. 84) “which attest the translation our great God and Saviour as current among Greek-speaking Christians” are too late as guides to St. Paul’s meaning here. The similar problem in 2 Peter 1:1 must be discussed independently. At least, even if it be granted that the R.V. there is correct, and that 2 Peter 1:1 is an example of the transference to Christ of the language used of deified kings “in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times,” it does not follow that the same account must be given of Titus 2:13.​

 

[Towerwatchman]

I wasn't describing the Trinity towerwatchman.

I was making a factual statement: 'no matter how you view "son", a father is not his son (and vice versa)' since you claimed (in part)

Another irrelevant response.

All in the genealogical records are listed as Jesus' father towerwatchman(. Perhaps you should understand the term "father" from a Biblical perspective).

However, even if you ignore that God is Jesus' Father based on the genealogical records, you still must understand that names are included in the record. Therefore, God is functioning as a name (like Adam, Enos, Seth, Joseph, Mary).

Hence, Jesus is not God (as God is named as Jesus' Father).

Pay close attention. In Luke Jesus is listed as being adopted by Joseph, = no biological father/son relationship back to Adam. Matthew does not identify Jesus as the son of Joseph but of Mary. No father/son relationship back to Adam. Scripture proves your conclusion false.

Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he affirmed that he was "the Messiah, the Son of God".

With regards John 10:30,
I find it interesting that συ ανθρωπος ων ποιεις σεαυτον θεον is translated as "You, being a Man, make Yourself God" (when the text literally says "you--being a man--make yourself a god").

Seem to have ignored the following, therefore I will repost.

Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

If 'Son of God' means 'a creation of God', why would the high priest ask Jesus such a question? Following your interpretation of 'son of' meaning 'procreation of', everyone in the room was a son of God. What constitutes blasphemy? Is it claiming to be 'the son of man', sitting at the right hand of power', coming on the clouds of heaven'? Is it one or all three? No, it is claiming to be God. Question = which item mentioned by Jesus constitutes blasphemy? And why?
But I will do your homework for you.
Asking Jesus if He was the 'Son of God' was asking Jesus if He was equal to God. Also, note that only God appears in a cloud; therefore anyone claiming the cloud is claiming deity. That is how Jesus answered the question, and in doing so triggered the high priest to the point of demanding the death of Jesus.

Nevertheless, Jesus answers them by saying "It is written: 'I said, 'you are gods'". Quoting a Scripture about others as being 'gods' would make no sense if Jesus were claiming to be "God".

Unique, I have only heard this argument from JW's. Theos carries the major meaning of deity and minor meaning of ruler. Jesus was using the minor meaning of ruler when He said the above. If you bothered to do your homework before you posted you could have found that out.

However, when a son is biologically their father's child, the father is the "head" of his child due to him being the child's (biological) father.

Another irrelevant post.

Never in Scripture are the Father, son, and holy spirit referred to as 'one being'.

So? Does scripture have to spell everything out literally? Did God not give us the cognitive ability to figure things out. Funny how you attempt to argue intelligently against the intellect.

If they were "the same being", Jesus could not refer to the Law stating: "δυο ανθρωπων η μαρτυρια αληθης εστιν (the testimony of two men is true") as the Law doesn't allow one being with "two centers of consciousness" to be a double witness.

Really?? This one takes the cake. According to the verse what is necessary for a true testimony? Is it the presence of a warm body absent of cognitive ability? Or the presence of cognitive ability? Where does cognitive ability come from? Intelligence maybe? Consciousness is necessary for intelligence. Instead of looking for the testimony of two warm bodies with an IQ of ten, scripture is referring to the testimony of two centers of consciousness that possess intelligence.= Jesus and the Father

That's like a lawyer stating he has two witnesses, and then someone approaches and testifies as "a son", and then the same individual comes back and testifies (as a 2nd witness, but) as "a father".

That would be dumb if it was any human. But we are discussing God.

 

[Towerwatchman]

No.

We have two individuals bearing witness.

Yes, two individuals = two centers of consciousness,

Does the text express that Thomas doubted Jesus' identity, or his resurrection? Thomas' own statement confirms what he doubted:
Thus, the only thing Thomas doubted (per this text) is that Jesus was resurrected.

You seem to have the misfortune of reading partial passages, picking up the irrelevant, and missing what is important. Thomas did call Jesus his Lord and his God. Using ho theos Thomas affirmed Jesus' deity, and John neither records Jesus correcting Thomas, or writes a comment correcting Thomas. Thomas affirms Jesus as God.

Did not Jonathon say to David: "Lord YHWH of Israel"? Yes. Did that mean Jonathon was calling David 'YHWH God of Israel'? No!

Chapter and verse, please.

Did not Jesus answer and say to the crowd: "my mother and my brothers"? (Of course.) Did that mean Jesus was calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers'? No!

The fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
BTW one has nothing to do with the other.

Therefore, just because Thomas answered and said to Jesus: "my Lord and my God" does not mean Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God.

Then what was he calling Jesus?
“Interpret Scripture literally first.” The Bible is not a book of mysticism. Take the Bible at face value, in its natural, normal sense. Look first for the clear teaching, not some hidden meaning. Understand and recognize figures of speech and interpret them accordingly.

Also when interpreting verses, either the entire verse is literal or figurative, never a portion of.

You continue to claim that Jesus' "sonship" is being applied to "relationship not procreation"; yet, there are no scriptures to support this thought--especially considering Jesus is the 'only born son'.

Where did your dig up this translation? Now we substitute 'only-begotten' with 'only born'.
“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived. This is evident in Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…

We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac and Abrahams's only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children? John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only-begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.

Philemon 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

Following your logic, Paul fathered a grown man while in prison.

Yes it is if you believe both were in existence for the same amount of time.

Such would make them twins(. And even amongst twins, there is a hierarchy)

Now you are just pulling anything out of thin air. Arguing as if 'twins' is the only answer.

You may want to think on this even more because the reason it is called "natural selection" is because the selection is natural(, ie, 'found in nature).

So what? Can you point to NS? How does it select?

In a father/son relationship, the person with the "position of authority" is the father.

The "father"(, ie, the "authoritative figure") is the father because of either biology or adoption.

I believe you are confusing authority with respect. In a father-son relationship, the son can possess more authority than the father, it is not etched in stone. The Father and Jesus do share a hierarchical relationship where the Father has authority over Jesus.

This is never presented in Scripture.

The Bible presents one individual having authority of another individual (eg 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Things do not have to be spelled out literally in scripture to be true. We can connect the dots to come to conclusions. For example, Matthew was able to do just that.

 

[Towerwatchman]

The Bible never implied that "three centers of consciousness fully share the being called God". Instead, it promotes:

1) God,
2) God's son, and
3) God's holy spirit.

Who does the whole of Scripture proclaim to be God?
Ephesians 4:6 proclaims the Father to be God.
Titus 2:13; John 1:1,14; 20:28 proclaim the Son to be God.
Acts 5:3-4 proclaims the Holy Spirit to be God.
And of course, Deuteronomy 4:35 proclaims God to be the one, true God.
Therefore the Bible says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Jehovah God.


According to the whole of Scripture who raised Jesus from the dead?
Romans 6:4 teaches that the Father raised Jesus from the dead.
John 2:19-21; 10:17,18 proclaims the Son raised Himself from the dead.
Romans 8:11 proclaims the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
And Acts 3:26, 13:30, 17:30,31; 1 Thess. 1:9,10; Heb. 13:20 reveals that only God could raise Jesus from the dead.
Therefore the whole of Scripture reveals the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in unity as God was responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. You cannot refute this, Nontrin, and you never will.

Now let’s look at the issue of salvation. Specifically regeneration, justification, and sanctification.


According to Scripture who REGENERATES man?
1 Peter 1:3 proclaims the Father regenerates man.
John 5:21, 4:14 proclaims the Son regenerates man.
John 3:6; Titus 3:5 proclaims the Holy Spirit regenerates man.
Now since God regenerates man (1 John 3:9) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.


According to Scripture JUSTIFIES man?
Jer. 23:6, cf. 2 Cor. 5:19 proclaims that the Father JUSTIFIES man.
Romans 5:9, 10:4; 2 Cor. 5:19-21 proclaims that the Son JUSTIFIES man.
1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 5:5 proclaims that the Holy Spirit JUSTIFIES man.
And since God justifies man (Romans 4:6, 9:33) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for justifying man according to the whole of Scripture.


According to Scripture who SANCTIFIES man?
Jude 1 proclaims that the Father SANCTIFIES man.
Titus 2:14 proclaims that the Son SANCTIFIES man.
1 Peter 1:2 proclaims that the Holy Spirit SANCTIFIES man.
And since God SANCTIFIES man (Exodus 31:13) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.

Again just because scripture does not explicitly state in one verser that X exists, does not mean that man cannot conclude from multiple verses that X exists.

What you refer to as "narrow-minded" is what I call scriptural.

And scripturally speaking, "God" in the phrase "son of God" is never used in the way you are using it.

The context cannot support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" at 2 Thessalonians 1:12. (The so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support it, but because of the many restrictions it has, even this "rule" is questionable with regards this verse.)
The context, OTOH, supports the translation "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".

Well, that is your opinion. You see only one possible translation where I see two. And why do you even argue? We both are in agreement as to which translation is best.

The context of Titus 2:13 does not support the translation "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ". Neither does the context of 2 Peter 1:1 support it's "our God and savior Jesus Christ" translation. (Again, the so-called "Sharp's Rule" seems to support these translations; however, context is what causes others to choose the alternate translations.)
If that were the case, "Sharp's Rule" would not exist (especially considering grammar doesn't work in the way this "rule" works as grammar functions too freely to be bound by such a 'rule'.)

That is not an answer. Proper scholarship requires you to explain why you believe the above. Otherwise, you are posting your opinion and opinions are not universal truths.

 

[Towerwatchman]

While I could address these quotes, there really is no reason for me to seeing as these "scholars" have not shown that my statement is incorrect--especially considering neither of these scholars address the context of these verses.

And neither have you.

 

[Towerwatchman]

I didn't dodge it because it wasn't worth discussing again. I've already established that these texts have the same grammatical structure as 2 Thessalonians 1:12(, and yet 1 Thessalonians 1:12 is translated as "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" despite "Sharp's Rule").

2 Peter 1:2's "του θεου και ιησου του κυριου ημων" can be viewed as a similar epithet as "του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου" as stated in 2 Peter 1:1(. It is this context that has led to others to translate 2 Peter 1:1 as "of God and our savior Jesus Christ").

Also, at Titus 2:13, there are the genitive phrases:
1) του μεγαλου θεου (of the great God), and
2) σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου (of our savior Jesus Christ)

Therefore, του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου can easily be translated as: "of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ (or, "of Jesus Christ our savior)"

Moreover, at 2 Peter 1:1, there are the genitive phrases:
1) του θεου ημων (of our God), and
2) σωτηρος ιησου χριστου (of savior Jesus Christ)

Therefore, του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου can easily be translated as: "of our God and of the savior Jesus Christ"(. The same is true of 2 Peter 1:11. Contextually speaking, Jesus has been referred to as "Lord" throughout the chapter, so it is more probable that "Lord" refers to Jesus at 2 Peter 1:11).

If Titus 2:13 is speaking of the appearance of the Father, what support do you have for this?

 

[Towerwatchman]

That's not what I said.

I said I don't have to look to scholars to tell me what the Greek says/means because I am a scholar myself.

Of course you don't.

So again, what was the purpose of your comment:




Are you saying that the below (as quoted by OldShepherd):

had nothing to do with Titus 2:13?

With regards to 2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, the only thing that was said was:


ie, the grammar in both verses is the same(, which I already acknowledged but addressed here).

True scholars have no problem quoting support from other scholars. In the time it took you to write the above you could have cited one scholar. Following experience, when someone gives an answer like yours, it is proof that they possess no academic training.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Let us read a bit further in your source Expositor's N.T.

In view of the fact that the most probable exegesis of Romans 9:5 is that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεός εὐλογητὸς, κ. τ. λ. refers to Christ, it cannot be said that ὁ μέγας θεός, as applied to Him, is un-Pauline. But the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disputable texts, but in the whole attitude of his soul towards Christ, and in the doctrine of the relation of Christ to mankind which is set forth in his epistles. St. Paul’s “declarations of the divinity of the Eternal Son” are not studied, as Ellicott admits that this would be if the R.V. rendering (our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ) be adopted. To this it may be added that the Versions, with the exception of the Aethiopic, agree with R.V.m. Ell. cites on the other side, of ante-Nicene writers, Clem. Alex., Protrept. § 7, and Hippolytus,—quoted by Wordsworth—besides the great bulk of the post-Nicene fathers. The text is one which would strike the eye of a reader to whose consciousness the Arian controversy was present; but it is safe to say that if it had read τοῦ σωτῆρος, the μεγάλου would have excited no comment. Consequently the papyri (all vii. A.D.) cited by J. H. Moulton (Grammar, vol. i. p. 84) “which attest the translation our great God and Saviour as current among Greek-speaking Christians” are too late as guides to St. Paul’s meaning here. The similar problem in 2 Peter 1:1 must be discussed independently. At least, even if it be granted that the R.V. there is correct, and that 2 Peter 1:1 is an example of the transference to Christ of the language used of deified kings “in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times,” it does not follow that the same account must be given of Titus 2:13.​

What you quoted only strengthens my argument. (What you highlighted only shows that the author believes Jesus is "God incarnate"--something the Bible doesn't state., especially considering Jesus' own words at John 4:24.)

 

[SeventhDay]

Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I searched high and low and found nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers explicitly state that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it explicitly states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter verses where Jesus or the authors explicitly state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

Titus 2:13 = looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Peter 1:1 = Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have [a]obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Note: any counter would have to rise to the same standard, and produce verses that explicitly state that Jesus is not God.

Since Yahusha is a sign of Jonah and that is a sign of a man who would bring redemption to his own people and all the other nations as well then in that regard is a man. However, the sign that points to God who is our Father is also our Father and is the Son of God as well. Jesus said thae the Father and he was one but who believes it?

Father and Son are not two separate persons but one person and when we worship Yahusha we do not worship the sign but what the sign represents.

The Word made flesh does not make two persons or two Gods.

Furthermore, the Father and Son relationship was manifest to us in time and space but that relationship always existed in eternity but that does not make God two persons either. God is one as the Father and as the Son and in relationship.

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Another irrelevant response.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Pay close attention. In Luke Jesus is listed as being adopted by Joseph, = no biological father/son relationship back to Adam. Matthew does not identify Jesus as the son of Joseph but of Mary. No father/son relationship back to Adam. Scripture proves your conclusion false.

Jesus is listed as being adopted by Joseph because he is(--biologically speaking) the son of God (Luke 1:35. See also Matthew 16:16).

I'm surprised you stated Jesus has "no biological father/son relationship back to Adam" after stating Jesus is the son of Mary per Matthew (as though Mary's lineage--as with all humans--can't be traced back to Adam).

Nevertheless, in all the texts that speak of Jesus being the "son of God", "God" is used as a name--not a "nature", which is why God is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Seem to have ignored the following, therefore I will repost.

Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”
If 'Son of God' means 'a creation of God', why would the high priest ask Jesus such a question? Following your interpretation of 'son of' meaning 'procreation of', everyone in the room was a son of God.

No one in the room as a "procreation of God" (except Jesus). Hence, the accusation of blasphemy, especially considering the Jews believed--after all that Jesus said and did--he was "a Samaritan and had a demon".

What constitutes blasphemy? Is it claiming to be 'the son of man', sitting at the right hand of power', coming on the clouds of heaven'? Is it one or all three? No, it is claiming to be God. Question = which item mentioned by Jesus constitutes blasphemy? And why?
But I will do your homework for you.
Asking Jesus if He was the 'Son of God' was asking Jesus if He was equal to God.

How does being the "son of God" make you "equal to God"?

The only way sons are equal to their (biological) fathers are with regards to nature(--which is why when a human procreates, they bring into existence another human--thus, two humans. Likewise, God procreated "the only born god" of John 1:18).

Also, note that only God appears in a cloud;

The text doesn't say "appears in a cloud" but "coming in the clouds".

therefore anyone claiming the cloud is claiming deity. That is how Jesus answered the question, and in doing so triggered the high priest to the point of demanding the death of Jesus.

The only thing "coming on the clouds" would've brought to mind is Daniel 7:13(. And even in that text, the "son of man" is viewed as someone other than the "Ancient of Days". Moreover, in Daniel 7:13, the "son of man" is not equal to the "Ancient of Days").

So, they accused Jesus of blasphemy because they didn't believe he'd fulfill Daniel 7:13--not that he was claiming deity.

Unique, I have only heard this argument from JW's. Theos carries the major meaning of deity and minor meaning of ruler. Jesus was using the minor meaning of ruler when He said the above. If you bothered to do your homework before you posted you could have found that out.

QEOS doesn't mean deity or ruler, so what are you talking about?

Nonetheless, you still haven't explained how Jesus' use of Psalm 82:6 helped him prove he was God.

Another irrelevant post.

No rebuttal I see.

So? Does scripture have to spell everything out literally? Did God not give us the cognitive ability to figure things out. Funny how you attempt to argue intelligently against the intellect.

Why would we have to figure out something Scripture could plainly state?

We didn't have to figure out YHWH is God (because Scripture plainly states it).
We don't have to figure out Jesus is "the Messiah, son of the living God" (as Scripture plainly states it).

These are things that are explicitly stated.

Really?? This one takes the cake. According to the verse what is necessary for a true testimony? Is it the presence of a warm body absent of cognitive ability? Or the presence of cognitive ability? Where does cognitive ability come from? Intelligence maybe? Consciousness is necessary for intelligence. Instead of looking for the testimony of two warm bodies with an IQ of ten, scripture is referring to the testimony of two centers of consciousness that possess intelligence.= Jesus and the Father

There are no "centers of consciousness" in Scripture (since "centers of consciousness" dwell in the brain).

Instead, the Bible speaks of beings--both human and spirit.

Therefore, the Law is only valid if two beings are witnesses. Jesus presents himself as a witness, and the second witness is God(, his Father).

That would be dumb if it was any human. But we are discussing God.

Actually, we're discussing God and the one God sent.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Yes, two individuals = two centers of consciousness,

Two individuals would have two centers of consciousness because they are two (different) beings with two (different) brains.

So, this doesn't help your argument.

You seem to have the misfortune of reading partial passages, picking up the irrelevant, and missing what is important. Thomas did call Jesus his Lord and his God.

That also means Jonathon called David "YHWH God of Israel".

Using ho theos Thomas affirmed Jesus' deity,

Unless this was an exclamatory statement.

and John neither records Jesus correcting Thomas, or writes a comment correcting Thomas. Thomas affirms Jesus as God.

Jesus doesn't even acknowledge the statement(, which argues against Jesus understanding this as Thomas calling him his Lord and God).

Instead, Jesus addresses Thomas' (former) disbelief mentioned in John 20:25--stating that he now believes.

Chapter and verse, please.

So, you didn't click the hyperlink?

The fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
BTW one has nothing to do with the other.

Another unsubstantiated claim I see.

Then what was he calling Jesus?

Nothing(, which is why Jesus doesn't acknowledge the statement).

It was an exclamation.

“Interpret Scripture literally first.” The Bible is not a book of mysticism. Take the Bible at face value, in its natural, normal sense. Look first for the clear teaching, not some hidden meaning. Understand and recognize figures of speech and interpret them accordingly.

Also when interpreting verses, either the entire verse is literal or figurative, never a portion of.

It seems you are replying just to be replying (as this doesn't address anything).

Where did your dig up this translation? Now we substitute 'only-begotten' with 'only born'.

MONOGENHS literally means "only born"(--just as GHGENHS means "earth born", DIOGENHS means "born of Zeus", EUGENHS means "well born", SUGGENHS means "born with", and HERMOGENHS means "born of Hermes").

“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived.

1 John 5:1.

This is evident in Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…
We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac and Abrahams's only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children?

You do realize MONOGENHS is used in both a figurative and literal way, correct? Hence, Isaac is figuratively the MONOGENHS (with relation to God's promise to his father).

John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only-begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.

You've argued my point--that Jesus is literally God's only born.

Philemon 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

Following your logic, Paul fathered a grown man while in prison.

Figuratively speaking, he did.

Now you are just pulling anything out of thin air. Arguing as if 'twins' is the only answer.

It is if you believe both have been in existence for the same amount of time(--that is--eternity).

So what? Can you point to NS? How does it select?

Naturally(. Hence, it's called "natural selection").

I believe you are confusing authority with respect. In a father-son relationship, the son can possess more authority than the father, it is not etched in stone.

Not in an "economic" setting.

The Father and Jesus do share a hierarchical relationship where the Father has authority over Jesus.

That's because the Father is God(. Hence the scripture "the Head of Christ is God").

Again, you've proven my point: that in a father/son relationship, the father has authority over his son.

Things do not have to be spelled out literally in scripture to be true. We can connect the dots to come to conclusions. For example, Matthew was able to do just that.

With regards to what?

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Who does the whole of Scripture proclaim to be God?
Ephesians 4:6 proclaims the Father to be God.
Titus 2:13; John 1:1,14; 20:28 proclaim the Son to be God.
Acts 5:3-4 proclaims the Holy Spirit to be God.
And of course, Deuteronomy 4:35 proclaims God to be the one, true God.
Therefore the Bible says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Jehovah God.


According to the whole of Scripture who raised Jesus from the dead?
Romans 6:4 teaches that the Father raised Jesus from the dead.
John 2:19-21; 10:17,18 proclaims the Son raised Himself from the dead.
Romans 8:11 proclaims the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
And Acts 3:26, 13:30, 17:30,31; 1 Thess. 1:9,10; Heb. 13:20 reveals that only God could raise Jesus from the dead.
Therefore the whole of Scripture reveals the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in unity as God was responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. You cannot refute this, Nontrin, and you never will.

Now let’s look at the issue of salvation. Specifically regeneration, justification, and sanctification.


According to Scripture who REGENERATES man?
1 Peter 1:3 proclaims the Father regenerates man.
John 5:21, 4:14 proclaims the Son regenerates man.
John 3:6; Titus 3:5 proclaims the Holy Spirit regenerates man.
Now since God regenerates man (1 John 3:9) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.


According to Scripture JUSTIFIES man?
Jer. 23:6, cf. 2 Cor. 5:19 proclaims that the Father JUSTIFIES man.
Romans 5:9, 10:4; 2 Cor. 5:19-21 proclaims that the Son JUSTIFIES man.
1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 5:5 proclaims that the Holy Spirit JUSTIFIES man.
And since God justifies man (Romans 4:6, 9:33) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for justifying man according to the whole of Scripture.


According to Scripture who SANCTIFIES man?
Jude 1 proclaims that the Father SANCTIFIES man.
Titus 2:14 proclaims that the Son SANCTIFIES man.
1 Peter 1:2 proclaims that the Holy Spirit SANCTIFIES man.
And since God SANCTIFIES man (Exodus 31:13) we have to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.

There is really no reason to address all of these scriptures when I can address the 1st set:

Who does the whole of Scripture proclaim to be God?
Ephesians 4:6 proclaims the Father to be God. Ephesians 4:6 speaks of the "one God and Father". Hence, this appositive not only demonstrates that the Father is God, but demonstrates that God is the Father. (Do you believe God is the son, and/or God is the holy spirit?)
Titus 2:13; John 1:1,14; 20:28 proclaim the Son to be God. These texts are ambiguous since they all have textual criticism and/or translation issues.
Acts 5:3-4 proclaims the Holy Spirit to be God. Acts 5:3, 4 equates lying to the holy spirit is akin to lying to God--just as 1 Thessalonians 4:8 equates rejecting the apostle's instructions is akin to rejecting God. So, just as the apostles are not God, neither is the holy spirit.
And of course, Deuteronomy 4:35 proclaims God to be the one, true God. And who does Jesus say is the "only true God"?
Therefore the Bible says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Jehovah God. If that were true, the phrase "one God" would be used of them collectively. Unfortunately, Scripture uses the phrase "one God" of the Father alone.

Again just because scripture does not explicitly state in one verser that X exists, does not mean that man cannot conclude from multiple verses that X exists.

Anyone can conclude anything if they "connect the dots" the way Trinitarians do when it comes to "proving the Trinity".

This is the same method used by those both within and outside of Orthodoxy when concluding that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

Well, that is your opinion. You see only one possible translation where I see two. And why do you even argue? We both are in agreement as to which translation is best.

I haven't given any opinions.

That is not an answer. Proper scholarship requires you to explain why you believe the above. Otherwise, you are posting your opinion and opinions are not universal truths.

I did.

You ignored what was said (as an opinion when it is not).

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

If Titus 2:13 is speaking of the appearance of the Father, what support do you have for this?

The text isn't speaking about the appearance of the Father.

The text speaks of the "appearing of the glory of the great God and (of the glory of) our savior Jesus Christ".

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

True scholars have no problem quoting support from other scholars. In the time it took you to write the above you could have cited one scholar.

What would be the point besides pitting "scholar vs scholar"?

Besides, my knowledge of the Biblical Languages has been demonstrated on CARM's Biblical Languages board for over a decade--which is why even the Trinitarians (like Akriboo and Paragon) that used to post there stated I was one of the (few) Unitarians with command of Greek grammar.

Following experience, when someone gives an answer like yours, it is proof that they possess no academic training.

Actually, it's quite the opposite.

Those who quote scholars are the ones that usually possess no academic training(, which is why they must rely on "scholars" to tell them what to believe).

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

And neither have you.

There was no need as it was you who made the claim:

Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea the translators will insert or delete words when translating. Even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text. 2Pe 1:1 is speaking exclusively about Jesus and 2 Thess 1:12 about Jesus and God.

And yet, when I asked:

how is it that you can make the claim that "even though 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Pe 1:1 have the same structure they cannot be translated the same due to the immediate text" when it comes to the context surrounding 1 Thessalonians 1:12 but ignore context with regards to 2 Peter 1:1?

Since you've clearly ignored context with regards 2 Peter 1:1, just how did you come to the above conclusion?

I've gotten nothing but "radio silence".

 

[Towerwatchman]

Another unsubstantiated claim.

Jesus is listed as being adopted by Joseph because he is(--biologically speaking) the son of God (Luke 1:35. See also Matthew 16:16).

I'm surprised you stated Jesus has "no biological father/son relationship back to Adam" after stating Jesus is the son of Mary per Matthew (as though Mary's lineage--as with all humans--can't be traced back to Adam).

Nevertheless, in all the texts that speak of Jesus being the "son of God", "God" is used as a name--not a "nature", which is why God is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

No one in the room as a "procreation of God" (except Jesus). Hence, the accusation of blasphemy, especially considering the Jews believed--after all that Jesus said and did--he was "a Samaritan and had a demon".

How does being the "son of God" make you "equal to God"?

The only way sons are equal to their (biological) fathers are with regards to nature(--which is why when a human procreates, they bring into existence another human--thus, two humans. Likewise, God procreated "the only born god" of John 1:18).

The text doesn't say "appears in a cloud" but "coming in the clouds".

The only thing "coming on the clouds" would've brought to mind is Daniel 7:13(. And even in that text, the "son of man" is viewed as someone other than the "Ancient of Days". Moreover, in Daniel 7:13, the "son of man" is not equal to the "Ancient of Days").

So, they accused Jesus of blasphemy because they didn't believe he'd fulfill Daniel 7:13--not that he was claiming deity.

QEOS doesn't mean deity or ruler, so what are you talking about?

Nonetheless, you still haven't explained how Jesus' use of Psalm 82:6 helped him prove he was God.

No rebuttal I see.

Why would we have to figure out something Scripture could plainly state?

We didn't have to figure out YHWH is God (because Scripture plainly states it).
We don't have to figure out Jesus is "the Messiah, son of the living God" (as Scripture plainly states it).

These are things that are explicitly stated.


There are no "centers of consciousness" in Scripture (since "centers of consciousness" dwell in the brain).

Instead, the Bible speaks of beings--both human and spirit.

Therefore, the Law is only valid if two beings are witnesses. Jesus presents himself as a witness, and the second witness is God(, his Father).

Actually, we're discussing God and the one God sent.

What you quoted only strengthens my argument. (What you highlighted only shows that the author believes Jesus is "God incarnate"--something the Bible doesn't state., especially considering Jesus' own words at John 4:24.)

Back to being the one verse wonder. As if Jn 4:24 states that God exists in Spirit form only and cannot manifest Himself and the creation is greater than the Creator. Notice the verse does not state that God is confined to spirit form only.

Ro 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Paul is explicit, Jesus is God incarnate. If you disagree argue the verse, immediate text, chapter, book or author. Arguing from Jn is poor scholarship.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Father and Son are not two separate persons

God bless you,

SeventhDay

How do you reconcile this with Phil 2:6 where Paul writes that Jesus is separate from the Father.

 

[OldShepherd]

What you quoted only strengthens my argument. (What you highlighted only shows that the author believes Jesus is "God incarnate"--something the Bible doesn't state., especially considering Jesus' own words at John 4:24.)

Did you actually read my post? "the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disputable texts," Not the author of the Expositor's GNT.

 

[SeventhDay]

How do you reconcile this with Phil 2:6 where Paul writes that Jesus is separate from the Father.

Php 2:5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,

Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,

It seems in that quotation that Jesus is God who is the Word made flesh. Nothing there about another person separate from God. The Word made flesh is not two persons!

Does two sides of a coin make two coins? Neither does Father in the Son and the Son in the Father make two persons. Jesus said that the Father and himself was one. Do you believe him?

I understand how it is difficult to understand how God can be the Father and Son in relationship and not be two persons but if that was so then we would have two Gods.. The trinity doctrine of God is three persons is polytheism. The scriptures do not teach us that concept which is man's tradition and not in the scriptures.

It makes no difference if you state that the Son prays to God, teaches about the Father or is with the Father. The fact is that the Father and Son are one and are not separate.

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[Towerwatchman]

Jesus is listed as being adopted by Joseph because he is(--biologically speaking) the son of God (Luke 1:35. See also Matthew 16:16).

I'm surprised you stated Jesus has "no biological father/son relationship back to Adam" after stating Jesus is the son of Mary per Matthew (as though Mary's lineage--as with all humans--can't be traced back to Adam).

Nevertheless, in all the texts that speak of Jesus being the "son of God", "God" is used as a name--not a "nature", which is why God is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Again you post verses that implicitly support your idea but ignore verses that explicitly contradict your idea. Yes Jesus is the son of Mary and Mary's lineage is traced back to Adam. But one has to ask why did Matthew not follow the pattern of listing the father/son relationship in the lineage when it came to Jesus and Joseph? Notice Matthew gave Joseph's lineage, not Mary's but points out that Jesus is Mary's physical Son and not Joseph's.

Note what you have failed to include in your discussion.

Why Mary?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us, a Son is given, And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Notice a child is born = Mary
a Son is given = God
Who is this Child/Son = Mighty God, Everlasting Father

How do you reconcile this with your idea that "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" implies a Creator /Creation relationship?

No one in the room as a "procreation of God" (except Jesus). Hence, the accusation of blasphemy, especially considering the Jews believed--after all that Jesus said and did--he was "a Samaritan and had a demon".

Red-herring nonsense. Nothing in Scripture states that Jesus is a procreation of God. Follow the narrative, claiming to be a procreation of God is not blasphemy, claiming to be God is. And that is what Jesus is.
"a Samaritan and had a demon" more red-herrings.

How does being the "son of God" make you "equal to God"?

The only way sons are equal to their (biological) fathers are with regards to nature(--which is why when a human procreates, they bring into existence another human--thus, two humans. Likewise, God procreated "the only born god" of John 1:18).

Why do you use such a bad translation? Is it out of desperation? Following your logic one has to ask, how does an eternal, immutable god procreate an eternal immutable god?
Again 'only-begotten' highly favored.
Seem to have ignored
“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived. This is evident in Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…

We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac and Abrahams's only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children? John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only-begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.

Philemon 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

Following your logic, Paul fathered a grown man while in prison.

Care to address the above, or ignore it as usual.

The text doesn't say "appears in a cloud" but "coming in the clouds".

Again pointing out the irrelevant. What is relevant is claiming the cloud.

The only thing "coming on the clouds" would've brought to mind is Daniel 7:13(. And even in that text, the "son of man" is viewed as someone other than the "Ancient of Days". Moreover, in Daniel 7:13, the "son of man" is not equal to the "Ancient of Days").

So, they accused Jesus of blasphemy because they didn't believe he'd fulfill Daniel 7:13--not that he was claiming deity.

Ex 14:24… in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud…
Ex 16:10 …as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud.
Ex 19:16…that there were thundering and lightning, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud…
Ex 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
1 Ki 8:10-12 …when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days…
Mt 17:5While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son…
Mt 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mt 26:64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Ac 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
Re 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

In the Old Testament, the cloud theophany was taken as the visible expression of the presence of God. The cloud filled the tabernacle and was there day and night as a witness to the presence of God. God appeared in the cloud on the Day of Atonement, and God’s acceptance of the temple built as His dwelling is shown when the cloud comes at the dedication in 1 Kings and many others. The theme is anyone who claims the cloud is claiming deity. Note Jesus at the Transfiguration, when he reveals his own glory, the clouds envelop him. When being interrogated by the Sanhedrin, Jesus claims the cloud in His reply. At His ascension, He is received into the clouds, and in Revelation returns on a cloud. In a nutshell, anyone who claims to ride the cloud claims deity.