Who is the God of.... Jesus Christ?

Then I'll help you see it. You said, "God is supreme over the human Jesus."

Jesus is not a human. If you had said "God was supreme over the human Jesus," I would likely agree with you.

Jesus was a human when he was on the earth. You deny that? Based on theology not articulated until centuries later?
 
Yes.

Do you agree with the Louw-Nida lexicon that the Word became a human being is what J 1:14 means?
It could be that specific or it could simply mean that he "became flesh." Either way, I have never denied that Jesus was a human, and I don't know why that wasn't immediately obvious to you.
 
<sigh>

The Trinity does NOT teach "two gods".
The Trinity EXPLICITLY teaches "ONLY ONE GOD EXISTS".

To deny that is to either show yourself ignorant of the Trinity, or else dishonestly misrepresenting the Trinity.

Your underlying ASSUMPTION is that "two persons" who are God, MUST allegedly mean "two gods".

"One person per god".
"Unitarianism".

You have not PROVEN that assumption.
You merely ASSERT it over and over.
Are you now claiming Jesus- by himself, who HAS a God- is the Trinity?
 
It could be that specific or it could simply mean that he "became flesh." Either way, I have never denied that Jesus was a human, and I don't know why that wasn't immediately obvious to you.

You said:
Then I'll help you see it. You said, "God is supreme over the human Jesus."

Jesus is not a human. If you had said "God was supreme over the human Jesus," I would likely agree with you.
Now you are ok with LN that the Word became a human being?

BDAG lists J 1:14 under γινομαι double nom.:
W. double nom. (Ps.-Apollod., Epit. 3, 15 δράκων λίθος ἐγένετο; Quint. Smyrn. 12, 507; Bel 28; 4 Macc 18:7) οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3. τὸ αἵμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον GJs 24:3. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο J 1:14

Notice Mt 4:3 with loaves becoming bread, same syntax.

So you are ok with the Word became a human being from Louw-Nida but not the Word is a human being?

Would the stone become bread and then you say the stone is not bread?
 
Last edited:
Are you now claiming Jesus- by himself, who HAS a God- is the Trinity?

Nice attempt to dodge justifying YOUR assumption of "Unitarianism".

Where did I EVER say "Jesus is the Trinity"?
Please quote me, or else stop bearing false witness.
Clearly you are not a Christian, since Christians don't bear false witness.
 
"Now divine"?!

Either one is eternally (in both directions) divine, or else one is not divine.
Divinity is not something you "become".
It's something you either always have been, or else never were.

Who told you that?

2 Pe 1:4 are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
 
You said:
Jesus is not a human. If you had said "God was supreme over the human Jesus," I would likely agree with you.


Now you are ok with LN that the Word became a human being?
BDAG lists J 1:14 under γινομαι double accusative.

W. double nom. (Ps.-Apollod., Epit. 3, 15 δράκων λίθος ἐγένετο; Quint. Smyrn. 12, 507; Bel 28; 4 Macc 18:7) οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3. τὸ αἵμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον GJs 24:3. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο J 1:14

Notice Mt 4:3 with loaves becoming bread, same syntax.

So you are ok with the Word became a human being from Louw-Nida but not the Word is a human being?

Would the stone become bread and then you say the stone is not bread?
If you are going to quote me, do it correctly.
Then I'll help you see it. You said, "God is supreme over the human Jesus."

Jesus is not a human. If you had said "God was supreme over the human Jesus," I would likely agree with you.
I made my remarks in regard to you your erroneous statement: "God is supreme over the human Jesus" I don't know what you are babbling about here.
 
If you are going to quote me, do it correctly.

I made my remarks in regard to you your erroneous statement: "God is supreme over the human Jesus" I don't know what you are babbling about here.

I added the part that has nothing to do with your misstatement here:
Post in thread 'Who is the God of.... Jesus Christ?'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/who-is-the-god-of-jesus-christ.1678/post-129230

Now can you explain why the inconsistency?


You said:
Then I'll help you see it. You said, "God is supreme over the human Jesus."

Jesus is not a human. If you had said "God was supreme over the human Jesus," I would likely agree with you.
Now you are ok with LN that the Word became a human being?

BDAG lists J 1:14 under γινομαι double nom.:
W. double nom. (Ps.-Apollod., Epit. 3, 15 δράκων λίθος ἐγένετο; Quint. Smyrn. 12, 507; Bel 28; 4 Macc 18:7) οἱ λίθοι ἄρτοι γίνονται the stones turn into loaves Mt 4:3. τὸ αἵμα αὐτοῦ λίθον γεγενημένον GJs 24:3. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο J 1:14

Notice Mt 4:3 with loaves becoming bread, same syntax.

So you are ok with the Word became a human being from Louw-Nida but not the Word is a human being?

Would the stone become bread and then you say the stone is not bread?
 
Nice attempt to dodge justifying YOUR assumption of "Unitarianism".

Where did I EVER say "Jesus is the Trinity"?
Please quote me, or else stop bearing false witness.
Clearly you are not a Christian, since Christians don't bear false witness.
NOW you make ANOTHER false claim: I was trying to figure out your OTHER claim.
Never mind; I see now the vanity of THAT!
 
Back
Top