A trinity of reality

[Runningman]

I am a Trinitarian and a Hypostatic Unionist. And when you are witnessing to Unitarians, then the discussions are always about the Deity of Christ. Example of their denial, if a Unitarian says, "Jesus Christ is not God," then that is equivalent or tantamount to "denying the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22, 1 John 5:20). Because they are in denial of Jesus who is the Christ is God. Here are three examples of the Deity of Christ.

Jesus Christ is Omniscient
Jesus Christ knows all things (1 John 3:20 i.e. John 16:30, John 21:17).
Jesus Christ knows the Father (Matthew 11:27, John 7:29, 8:55, 10:15, 17:25).
Jesus Christ knows all people (Psalm 139:1-4 i.e. John 2:24-25, Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, John 6:64).
Jesus Christ knows where to catch fish, even a coin (Luke 5:4-6, Matthew 17:27).

Jesus Christ is Omnipresent
Jesus Christ fills the whole universe (Jeremiah 23:23-24, Psalms 139:7-10 i.e. Ephesians 4:10, 1:22-23, Colossians 3:11, Acts 17:27).
Jesus Christ is with and in all the regenerated (John 14:23 i.e. Matthew 18:20, 28:20, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 3:24).

Jesus Christ is Omnipotent
Jesus Christ created all things (Jeremiah 32:17, Psalms 102:25 i.e. Hebrews 1:2-3, 10, 2:10, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 11:36, 1:20).
Jesus Christ declares all things are possible and able (Job 42:1-2, Jeremiah 32:27 i.e. Luke 18:26-27, Matthew 9:28, Philippians 3:20–21).
Jesus Christ performs miracles (John 2:11, Matthew 9:28, Luke 6:19, 8:46) and Divine titles (1 Corinthians 1:24, 2 Corinthians 12:9).

You do realize I just need to give one example of Jesus not being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to prove your premise wrong, right?

Jesus not omniscient:

Matt 24
36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Jesus not omnipotent:

Mark 6
5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them.

Jesus is not omnipresent:

Luke 8
1Soon afterward, Jesus traveled from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with Him,


So looks like you’re completely misunderstanding Jesus again. I don’t know why you insist on just making things up.

 

[Binyawmene]

Your eisegesis is fundamental. In 1 John 5:20, the term "this," starting the final sentence, is "houtos." Examining it reveals that the context, rather than the nearest noun or pronoun, should establish the reference for "this."

When are you going to come up with an actual argument? In the 1st century, the Greek language was like others in that it had no punctuation, no spaces between letters, and all letters were in capitals, called “uncials.” Punctuation, spacing, and upper and lower case were not incorporated into the Greek language until centuries later.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John 5:20).

Do you see any period between Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ and οὗτός? As I have previously said:

This strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John style of writing uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. Even John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6). And of course, the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father"), an apparent example of a repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text (1 John 1:1-3, 5:11-12).​

Furthermore, if we follow your fail-logic and methodology for interpreting the Bible, then in 2 John 1:7 Jesus Christ himself would be a deceiver and antichrist.

2 John 1​

7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist​

Now your misunderstanding has been dealt with. This is why you have came to the false conclusion that Jesus is God. I recommend you actually study up on these things. Your poor trinitarian theology just creates serious, and sometimes troublesome, theological problems. Therefore, in 1 John 5:20 the true God is the Father, not Jesus.

Seriously? There isn't any difficulty differentiating between Jesus Christ and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who (deceiver) do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.​

Jesus Christ is not the subject. There is a difference between the subject and the object of a sentence. The subject of the first clause is "deceivers," and the second clause has "Jesus Christ" being the object. And the last sentence, "Any such person" or οὗτός is refer back to the subject deceivers or πλάνοι. Again, according to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent. The subject is both "deceiver" and "antichrist." Both are the same subject.

 

[Binyawmene]

You do realize I just need to give one example of Jesus not being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to prove your premise wrong, right?

Jesus not omniscient:

Matt 24
36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Jesus not omnipotent:

Mark 6
5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them.

Jesus is not omnipresent:

Luke 8
1Soon afterward, Jesus traveled from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with Him,


So looks like you’re completely misunderstanding Jesus again. I don’t know why you insist on just making things up.

Welcome to the world of the Hypostatic Union. Jesus Christ is both God and Man.

 

[donadams]

The father is the only God?

You are confusing or conflating nature with person!!

The father is the only God but not the only person!

One God (nature) three in (person)

 

[donadams]

No it’s the same in Matt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Father speaks
The son
The cloud represents the spirit

One God three divine persons

That’s divine faith!

 

[Runningman]

Welcome to the world of the Hypostatic Union. Jesus Christ is both God and Man.

Thousands of words later, you have not produced a single scripture that clearly states what you believe, but rather a long, convoluted, and irrational theology that no one intuitively lifts from the Bible when reading it.

On the other hands, Unitarians just enjoy the scripture that explicitly states exactly what they believe.

 

[Runningman]

When are you going to come up with an actual argument? In the 1st century, the Greek language was like others in that it had no punctuation, no spaces between letters, and all letters were in capitals, called “uncials.” Punctuation, spacing, and upper and lower case were not incorporated into the Greek language until centuries later.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (1 John 5:20).

Do you see any period between Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ and οὗτός? As I have previously said:

This strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John style of writing uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. Even John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6). And of course, the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father"), an apparent example of a repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text (1 John 1:1-3, 5:11-12).​

Seriously? There isn't any difficulty differentiating between Jesus Christ and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who (deceiver) do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.​

Jesus Christ is not the subject. There is a difference between the subject and the object of a sentence. The subject of the first clause is "deceivers," and the second clause has "Jesus Christ" being the object. And the last sentence, "Any such person" or οὗτός is refer back to the subject deceivers or πλάνοι. Again, according to the general rule on pronouns is that it modifies and refers to what is nearest or the last subject mentioned which is the immediate antecedent. The subject is both "deceiver" and "antichrist." Both are the same subject.

This is just tantamount to a denial. I clearly showed you that 1 John 5:20 doesn't force the reader to assume Jesus is the true God. I even demonstrated this with sound exegesis.

The true God is the Father because that is what the local and global context of the Bible says. Any time the "true God" is referred to it's always the Father, aka YHWH.

2 Chronicles 15​

3For many years Israel has been without the true God, without a priest to instruct them, and without the law.​

​

Jeremiah 10​

10But the LORD is the true God;​

He is the living God and eternal King.​

The earth quakes at His wrath,​

and the nations cannot endure His indignation.​

​

John 17​

3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​

​

1 Thessalonians 1​

9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.​

If you still deny this, I think I am just going to have to laugh at you. Not because it's funny, but because it's sad. However, I do hope you pay attention, especially to 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10 which clearly shows that the Father is the true God and that Jesus isn't.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is post #30. I don't think anyone has commented:



This does not all come down to the veracity of one text, because the 40 days of instruction in-person are the core NT Christian beliefs and have a 4th dimensional reality. As most observers have noticed, there is the Father, the Son and the Spirit mentioned. Not two and not 5. No named angel(s) etc. Just those 3. My math tells me that is a tri-unity, a trinity. It is a unity because they have one mission.

 

[Runningman]

This is post #30. I don't think anyone has commented:



This does not all come down to the veracity of one text, because the 40 days of instruction in-person are the core NT Christian beliefs and have a 4th dimensional reality. As most observers have noticed, there is the Father, the Son and the Spirit mentioned. Not two and not 5. No named angel(s) etc. Just those 3. My math tells me that is a tri-unity, a trinity. It is a unity because they have one mission.

I see the Holy Spirit (sometimes holy spirit) as either another name for God, i.e., God is both holy and Spirit so presto changeo God is Holy Spirit. I don't see this as a separate person. On the other hand, holy spirit can refer to an anointing. Spirit has multiple meanings so the context always helps determine how to understand it; it can be a wind or breath. The idea is the anointing of the holy spirit is the breath that feeds life into the kind of spirit it is, i,e., those with the anointing of the holy spirit bear fruits of the holy spirit because the anointing produces holiness. You could think of this like a source of power that sustains the life of the anointing in similar ways that breathing air with your lungs sustains the life of your physical body.

 

[Binyawmene]

This is just tantamount to a denial. I clearly showed you that 1 John 5:20 doesn't force the reader to assume Jesus is the true God. I even demonstrated this with sound exegesis.

Bickering match and nothing of substance. Basically, that is what deniers do; they accuse others as being in denial. Revelation 12:10

The true God is the Father because that is what the local and global context of the Bible says. Any time the "true God" is referred to it's always the Father, aka YHWH.

2 Chronicles 15​

3For many years Israel has been without the true God, without a priest to instruct them, and without the law.​

​

Jeremiah 10​

10But the LORD is the true God;​

He is the living God and eternal King.​

The earth quakes at His wrath,​

and the nations cannot endure His indignation.​

​

John 17​

3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​

​

1 Thessalonians 1​

9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.​

That doesn't rule-out that Jesus Christ is God. All I see is your lack of understanding of both Trinity and Hypostatic Union doctrines.

If you still deny this, I think I am just going to have to laugh at you. Not because it's funny, but because it's sad. However, I do hope you pay attention, especially to 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10 which clearly shows that the Father is the true God and that Jesus isn't.

Laugh away, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And to deny that is to deny the Father and the Son.

 

[Binyawmene]

Thousands of words later, you have not produced a single scripture that clearly states what you believe, but rather a long, convoluted, and irrational theology that no one intuitively lifts from the Bible when reading it.

Here is another thousands of words.
It sounds like you want a bickering match here. That's what people do when they are in denial. How can I say this in a polite way? You are simply obfuscating and being obtuse. Here is the point, so the readers will understand. You don't take the whole of Scriptures into consideration. All you are doing is cherry picking certain verses from the whole of Scriptures about his humanity and denying the verses about his Deity. It's like pitting verses against verses and declaring man-only. A reader of this thread might be wondering, "Is the phrase, 'both God and Man' Scriptural? or "Is the phrase, 'both ignorant and omniscient' Scriptural" Those are meaningful and valid questions to ask. My answer is a flat-out, yes, even though you will not find that phraseology specifically stated in Scriptures, but the meaning of the phrase is 'drawn out' from the whole of Scriptures exegetically. After all a correct interpretation of a specific verse will always be consistent with the rest of the distinctive verses, they harmonize and not contradict each other. For example:

Jesus Christ is both ignorant and omniscient.​

Jesus Christ is ignorant

John 11:34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied.​

Jesus Christ is omniscient

John 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.​

Do the above verses look like a contradiction? It's not, Scriptures harmonizes. We call this the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Because there is a structural pattern found in Scriptures of Jesus Christ's Divine attributes as God and Human attributes as Man. For example, this is evident from the fact that Jesus Christ has divine intelligence being omniscient and his human intelligence that increased. You can also say, "Jesus Christ is"... "both omniscient and ignorant," "both omnipresent and localized," and "both omnipotent and powerless". The list goes on and on. If we know "this" and we know "that" about Jesus Christ, then Scriptures as a whole don't contradict but harmonizes.

From the whole of Scriptures the Bible tells us that "Jesus Christ is a Rabbi" (Mark 9:5, 14:45, John 1:38), then we examine further by acknowledging the fact that, "Jesus Christ is a Prophet" (Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16, John 4:19). Therefore, we would conclude that, "Jesus Christ is both Rabbi and Prophet." That is not a contradiction but Scriptures harmonizing. Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who Jesus Christ is. We don't pit a verse against another verse. Or ignore one verse over the other verse. Nor do we go around claiming a positional stance of Rabbi-Only or that being a Prophet is contradictory to him being a Rabbi. Hopefully this example will show some absurdity of Unitarian's argument.​

Now let's repeat the above example.

From the whole of Scriptures the Bible tells us that "Jesus Christ is ignorant" (Mark 11:12-13, John 11:33-35, Luke 8:45-46), then we examine further by acknowledging the fact that, "Jesus Christ is omniscient" (1 John 3:20 i.e. John 16:30, John 21:17). Therefore, we would conclude that, "Jesus Christ is both ignorant and omniscient." That is not a contradiction but Scriptures harmonizing. Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who Jesus Christ is. We don't pit a verse against another verse. Or ignore one verse over the other verse. Nor do we go around claiming a positional stance of ignorant-only or that being omniscient is contradictory to him being a ignorant. Hopefully this example will show some absurdity of Unitarian's argument.​

On the other hand, I'm trying to understand your Unitarianism because it's not logically making sense to me. Logically, you cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is a Man." Because you would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. Your common theme is demonstrated by pointing out Bible verses that Jesus Christ has claimed to be "a man." Or pointing out attributes of his "humanity" like being hungry, weeping, and lacking knowledge, etc. Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God." From your mindset its assumed that Jesus Christ being a man negates over him being God. Unfortunately, there would be no argument between both Hypostatic Unionists and Man-Only advocates in that particular regard. Even at the most basic level fundamentally. Since ultimately there would be a passable or just good enough acceptable agreement about Jesus Christ's humanity.

For example, of your all-go-to verse that declares Jesus of Nazareth was man. That is a guarantee and true without qualification. What I'm about to say isn't water down milk, it's meat. A Hypostatic Unionist know that 'him' being also God is automatically based on the extensional context of the whole of Scriptures (1 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20), and that is also true without qualification. Even though Acts 2:22 doesn't specifically state Jesus of Nazareth was God. And we don't restrict and isolate that verse about his humanity from the whole of Scriptures that declares his Deity. But if you understand who Jesus Christ is from the whole of Scriptures, then it doesn't matter how you read humanity or Deity in Scriptures, conversely, he is both God and Man.

Was that to hard for you to understand? In other words, Jesus Christ has two natures. And his deity cannot be thought of without his humanity, nor his humanity without his deity. You can say a penny has a "tails" side and is true without qualification. And you can also qualify another statement by saying it's true that a penny has a "heads" side too. So, every time you look at a penny, you don't say, "Tails-Only" because the penny also has another side called "heads" since there is an extensional context of the penny. You could point-out by referencing only one side of the penny, but that won't rule out that there is also another side to the penny itself. Heads incidentally accompanies tails (or vice versa), even if heads weren't mentioned in context, its automatically present and self-evident too.

 

[Runningman]

Bickering match and nothing of substance. Basically, that is what deniers do; they accuse others as being in denial. Revelation 12:10



That doesn't rule-out that Jesus Christ is God. All I see is your lack of understanding of both Trinity and Hypostatic Union doctrines.



Laugh away, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And to deny that is to deny the Father and the Son.

I think either you don't actually believe what the Bible says about God or your logic and reasoning is so unorthodox that you're understanding it all in different ways. While I understand and accept the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, words like "you the only true God" cannot because words have universal meaning. You would have to rely on redefining basic English words and grammatic rules to get to where you are.

 

[Runningman]

Here is another thousands of words.
It sounds like you want a bickering match here. That's what people do when they are in denial. How can I say this in a polite way? You are simply obfuscating and being obtuse. Here is the point, so the readers will understand. You don't take the whole of Scriptures into consideration. All you are doing is cherry picking certain verses from the whole of Scriptures about his humanity and denying the verses about his Deity. It's like pitting verses against verses and declaring man-only. A reader of this thread might be wondering, "Is the phrase, 'both God and Man' Scriptural? or "Is the phrase, 'both ignorant and omniscient' Scriptural" Those are meaningful and valid questions to ask. My answer is a flat-out, yes, even though you will not find that phraseology specifically stated in Scriptures, but the meaning of the phrase is 'drawn out' from the whole of Scriptures exegetically. After all a correct interpretation of a specific verse will always be consistent with the rest of the distinctive verses, they harmonize and not contradict each other. For example:

Jesus Christ is both ignorant and omniscient.​

Jesus Christ is ignorant

John 11:34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied.​

Jesus Christ is omniscient

John 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.​

That would be a false dichotomy. Jesus is a man who, through his life, accumulated knowledge and wisdom like all other people. He is not both ignorant and omniscient, but rather he continued growing in wisdom, knowledge, and understanding before God. God had to teach Jesus the doctrines and Jesus had to learn them. Furthermore, Jesus didn't even literally know all things, such as when his return would be, confessing that only the Father knows.

Jesus went through the normal human process of learning and building repertoire with God:

Luke 3​

52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.​

Jesus had to be taught by God what to do and say:

John 8​

28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.​

​

Like a normal human, Immanuel (Jesus) needed time to know to reject evil and choose good:

Isaiah 7​

15By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey.​

​

So I will ask you plainly. Does God need to grow in stature, favor, and wisdom? Does God need time to know enough to reject evil and choose good? Does God have to teach God?

Do the above verses look like a contradiction? It's not, Scriptures harmonizes. We call this the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Because there is a structural pattern found in Scriptures of Jesus Christ's Divine attributes as God and Human attributes as Man. For example, this is evident from the fact that Jesus Christ has divine intelligence being omniscient and his human intelligence that increased. You can also say, "Jesus Christ is"... "both omniscient and ignorant," "both omnipresent and localized," and "both omnipotent and powerless". The list goes on and on. If we know "this" and we know "that" about Jesus Christ, then Scriptures as a whole don't contradict but harmonizes.

It would harmonize if there was even a single precedent that Jesus was actually God, otherwise it is clear that Jesus progressed and grew in wisdom and knowledge like all other humans. Perhaps you would say, that's just the human side of Jesus. Why do you get to determine what the human side and God side of Jesus is when you can't even prove he is a "god man" in the first place?

From the whole of Scriptures the Bible tells us that "Jesus Christ is a Rabbi" (Mark 9:5, 14:45, John 1:38), then we examine further by acknowledging the fact that, "Jesus Christ is a Prophet" (Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16, John 4:19). Therefore, we would conclude that, "Jesus Christ is both Rabbi and Prophet." That is not a contradiction but Scriptures harmonizing. Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who Jesus Christ is. We don't pit a verse against another verse. Or ignore one verse over the other verse. Nor do we go around claiming a positional stance of Rabbi-Only or that being a Prophet is contradictory to him being a Rabbi. Hopefully this example will show some absurdity of Unitarian's argument.​

I am not sure why you would think that shows Unitarians to be absurd when what you said about Jesus is a Rabbi and Prophet is actually the first thing I've seen you say that I agree with.

Now let's repeat the above example.

From the whole of Scriptures the Bible tells us that "Jesus Christ is ignorant" (Mark 11:12-13, John 11:33-35, Luke 8:45-46), then we examine further by acknowledging the fact that, "Jesus Christ is omniscient" (1 John 3:20 i.e. John 16:30, John 21:17). Therefore, we would conclude that, "Jesus Christ is both ignorant and omniscient." That is not a contradiction but Scriptures harmonizing. Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who Jesus Christ is. We don't pit a verse against another verse. Or ignore one verse over the other verse. Nor do we go around claiming a positional stance of ignorant-only or that being omniscient is contradictory to him being a ignorant. Hopefully this example will show some absurdity of Unitarian's argument.​

On the other hand, I'm trying to understand your Unitarianism because it's not logically making sense to me. Logically, you cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is a Man." Because you would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. Your common theme is demonstrated by pointing out Bible verses that Jesus Christ has claimed to be "a man." Or pointing out attributes of his "humanity" like being hungry, weeping, and lacking knowledge, etc. Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God." From your mindset its assumed that Jesus Christ being a man negates over him being God. Unfortunately, there would be no argument between both Hypostatic Unionists and Man-Only advocates in that particular regard. Even at the most basic level fundamentally. Since ultimately there would be a passable or just good enough acceptable agreement about Jesus Christ's humanity.

It seems that when Jesus says or does something that clearly shows he isn't God then that's when you say that's the man side. However, when Jesus says or does something that hints that maybe he's God or at least a demi-god then that's when you say it's the deity of Jesus. However, all of those examples of Jesus allegedly being God aren't even things unique to Jesus?

For example, you quoted John 16:30 as your alleged proof that Jesus is omniscient. However, John 14:26 says the disciples could be taught all things, too. If they are taught all things, then by your reasoning the disciples are also omniscient. Of course you'll deny this, but nevertheless this is the exact same line of reasoning you're applying to Jesus.

John 14​

26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.​

For example, of your all-go-to verse that declares Jesus of Nazareth was man. That is a guarantee and true without qualification. What I'm about to say isn't water down milk, it's meat. A Hypostatic Unionist know that 'him' being also God is automatically based on the extensional context of the whole of Scriptures (1 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20), and that is also true without qualification. Even though Acts 2:22 doesn't specifically state Jesus of Nazareth was God. And we don't restrict and isolate that verse about his humanity from the whole of Scriptures that declares his Deity. But if you understand who Jesus Christ is from the whole of Scriptures, then it doesn't matter how you read humanity or Deity in Scriptures, conversely, he is both God and Man.

Was that to hard for you to understand? In other words, Jesus Christ has two natures. And his deity cannot be thought of without his humanity, nor his humanity without his deity.

Let's agree that Jesus is a human and there are also other humans. Jesus has that in common with other humans. Right? Okay, well, I want you to actually show something that Jesus did, or describe some quality he has, that clearly and beyond a doubt singles him out as God. So far, I have seen you explain why you believe the things you do and I understand, but now I want the actual meat. Why do you believe it? What did Jesus say or do to make you think this? If possible, please quote scripture.

 

[Binyawmene]

I think either you don't actually believe what the Bible says about God or your logic and reasoning is so unorthodox that you're understanding it all in different ways. While I understand and accept the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, words like "you the only true God" cannot because words have universal meaning. You would have to rely on redefining basic English words and grammatic rules to get to where you are.

A nice classic example of ad hominem and excellent witness of your Unitarianism. All you got to do is attack your opponents in an attempt to undermine the Scriptural truth. It doesn't matter what you think about me. It's about what the Bible says, and not about bickering matches.

 

[Binyawmene]

So I will ask you plainly. Does God need to grow in stature, favor, and wisdom? Does God need time to know enough to reject evil and choose good? Does God have to teach God?

It's not a false dichotomy since the Hypostatic Union is a "both, and" and not a "either, or." As for your question. No. Attributes, like lack of knowledge is of the nature and not of the person. Jesus Christ as God according to the Divine Nature doesn't need to grow in wisdom, etc. The immutable Divine Nature cannot change, grow, age, and deteriorate according to the mutable human nature (Hebrews 1:10-12, John 8:57, 58). And the mutable human nature cannot stop its own biological laws from growing in bodily properties and mental intellect (Luke 2:39, 40, 52) to be immutable according to the Divine Nature.

Example, as God according to the Divine Nature doesn't age, but according to the human nature he experiences the suffering of aging.

Hebrews 1:10-12 He also says, "IN THE BEGINNING, LORD, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, BUT YOU REMAIN; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. BUT YOU REMAIN THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NEVER END."

John 8:57-58 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”​

 

[Runningman]

It's not a false dichotomy since the Hypostatic Union is a "both, and" and not a "either, or." As for your question. No. Attributes, like lack of knowledge is of the nature and not of the person. Jesus Christ as God according to the Divine Nature doesn't need to grow in wisdom, etc. The immutable Divine Nature cannot change, grow, age, and deteriorate according to the mutable human nature (Hebrews 1:10-12, John 8:57, 58). And the mutable human nature cannot stop its own biological laws from growing in bodily properties and mental intellect (Luke 2:39, 40, 52) to be immutable according to the Divine Nature.

Example, as God according to the Divine Nature doesn't age, but according to the human nature he experiences the suffering of aging.

Hebrews 1:10-12 He also says, "IN THE BEGINNING, LORD, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, BUT YOU REMAIN; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. BUT YOU REMAIN THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NEVER END."​

Most versions of Hebrews 1:10 actually begin with the word "and" so verse 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since that's the case, verse 9 ends with "
therefore God, Your God, has anointed you above your companions with the oil of joy."

The Lord in Hebrews 1:10 is a reference back to the last God mentioned, the Father, Creator, and Sovereign Lord as Acts 4:24 says. If that isn't enough, you can actually flip back to Genesis where you will not find a "Son" doing any sort of creation. You should find YHWH, also known as the Father.

​

John 8:57-58 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”​

They were gaslighting Jesus. A classic bait to try to goad him. Jesus never said he saw Abraham. The words "I am" (ego eimi) are said all over the New Testament. When it was said in John 9:9 it was translated as "I am the man." So why do you make an exception for Jesus?

John 9 (NIV)
9Some claimed that he was.
Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”
But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”

 

[grace2]

Welcome to the world of the Hypostatic Union. Jesus Christ is both God and Man.

Hypostatic Union?

Where does the Bible use such a word?

 

[EarlyActs]

I see the Holy Spirit (sometimes holy spirit) as either another name for God, i.e., God is both holy and Spirit so presto changeo God is Holy Spirit. I don't see this as a separate person. On the other hand, holy spirit can refer to an anointing. Spirit has multiple meanings so the context always helps determine how to understand it; it can be a wind or breath. The idea is the anointing of the holy spirit is the breath that feeds life into the kind of spirit it is, i,e., those with the anointing of the holy spirit bear fruits of the holy spirit because the anointing produces holiness. You could think of this like a source of power that sustains the life of the anointing in similar ways that breathing air with your lungs sustains the life of your physical body.

Ok… this is about there being 3 in the godhead, not 2 or 5 or 4.

 

[Binyawmene]

Hypostatic Union?

Where does the Bible use such a word?

You will find the Greek word "hypostasis" is in the book of Hebrews 1:3 "charaktér tēs hypostaseōs," the Son is the exact expression of the Father's hypostasis. So, you have two hypostases. The Father's hypostasis mention in the singular, and the Son's hypostasis, which is clearly implied by "the exact expression of the." The Son only has one hypostasis for both natures which is the Hypostatic Union. While the union is implied by the ἐν (1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7), like how the doctrine "Union With Christ, or in Christ" is implied by the ἐν.

Scriptural reference for 'God in the Flesh':

God "in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7).
God took part in "flesh and blood" (Hebrews 2:14, 17).
God dwelled among us "in the flesh" (John 1:1, 14).
God with us "in the flesh" (Matthew 1:23).
God's flesh is touched physically "in the flesh" (1 John 1:1-2).
God suffered "in the flesh" (1 Peter 4:1).
God condemn sin "in the flesh" (Romans 8:3).
God Died "in the flesh" (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 5:7).
God is resurrected in "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).
God over all (Romans 9:5).​

 

[grace2]

Scriptural reference for 'God in the Flesh':

God "in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7).​

God took part in "flesh and blood" (Hebrews 2:14, 17).​

God dwelled among us "in the flesh" (John 1:1, 14).​

God with us "in the flesh" (Matthew 1:23).​

God's flesh is touched physically "in the flesh" (1 John 1:1-2).​

God suffered "in the flesh" (1 Peter 4:1).​

God condemn sin "in the flesh" (Romans 8:3).​

God Died "in the flesh" (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 5:7).​

God is resurrected in "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).​

God over all (Romans 9:5).​

Your interpretations do not harmonize with Jesus' word.