Mystery of the most holy trinity!

[Runningman]

Quite the opposite. The Trinity doctrine is a progressive revelation,

Progressive indoctrination.

which is revealed to the elect because of Jesus prayer. For instance, in Matthew 16:15, Jesus asked his disciples, "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter's answer is quite simple in verse 16 Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". Peter identified Jesus as the Messiah who is the Living God the Son.

Correct. And this is what was revealed to Peter by God about who Jesus is.

And Jesus himself said: John 13:19, "I am who I am"

He did not say "I am who I am" in John 13:19. I do look verses up. Please don't add to scripture.

has a two-fold understanding. This phrase not only declares that Jesus is the Messiah, but also indirectly referring to God’s self identification as “I AM” in Exodus. 3:14, or to God’s repeated claim that “I am he” in Isaiah 43:10, 13, 25 and Jesus Christ's repeated claim in John 8:24, 28, 58].

The words you're focusing on now, "ego eimi" are the Greek words that are found all over the New Testament. They translate to "I am he" or "I am the man" depending on the context. Many people said this in regards to themselves and it doesn't mean the same thing about what God said in Exodus 3:14. For example, a man who isn't Jesus said "ego eimi" in John 9:9. Doesn't mean he is claiming he is God.

As a Trinitarian, and for others too, we believe there is only one true God, that the Father is the true God and also Jesus Christ too. This is the testimony of John:

Jesus is praying to the Father for the elect,

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.​

The grammar of this sentence rules Jesus out as being God.

1. Subject and Predicate:
   • Subject: "You" (referring to the Father)
   • Predicate: "the only true God"
2. Article "the":
   • The use of the definite article "the" before "only true God" specifies and emphasizes a particular entity. In this case, it singles out the Father as the only true God.
3. Modifier "only true":
   • The modifiers "only" and "true" further emphasize the uniqueness and genuineness of God. It suggests exclusivity, indicating that there is no other God but the one being addressed as "Father."
4. Word Order:
   • The word order in the phrase places emphasis on "You" as the subject and "the only true God" as the predicate. This syntactical structure reinforces the idea that the Father is the sole possessor of the divine quality of being the only true God.

Father -

a). the elect may know that the Father is the true God​

b). and the Father sent Jesus Christ.​

Correct.

Jesus Christ -

a). the elect my know that Jesus Christ is the true God​

False.

b). and Jesus Christ is sent from the Father.​

Correct.

Jesus prayer was answered,

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him (the Father) who is true. And we are in him (the Father) who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.​

Person one = Son
Person two = God

"He is the true God" refers back to the previously mentioned God in the verse who is the Father. John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says the Father is the only God. Ephesians 4:6 says the Father is the only God. The Old Testament says the Father is the Only God.

Jesus Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun "this" - οὗτος, "he," the last person mentioned according to the grammar construction. Even Paul said in his letters:

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

There was no punctuation in Greek. Therefore, the correct translation of Romans 9:5 is this:

Romans 9 (RSV)
5to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

​

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,​

If you notice in the next verse 14,

Great God and Savior Jesus are two different persons.

who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.​

In verse 14 "who gave himself" the who is alluding back to verse 13 and is identified as "God and Savior, Jesus Christ" a clear reference to God incarnate. God in the flesh has accomplished the purpose of salvation as our SAVIOR. Even Peter literally identified Jesus Christ is God:

The one who gave himself would be savior Jesus. The Bible doesn't ever say God gave himself for our sins. The Bible says a man died for our sins. 1 Peter 2:24

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:​

No. Look at the very next verse where it's clear that Peter is talking about two different persons.

2 Peter 1
2Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

Its straightforward that Jesus Christ is both "God and Savior". The verse is not dividing "God and Savior" into two different subject-persons. The same sentence structure occurs again in the same letter:

You're making the mistake of conflating God with Jesus.

2 Peter 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.​

​

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our LORD and Savior Jesus Chris and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

​

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.​

Jesus has a God who is the Father. Therefore Jesus isn't God.

Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in your knowledge of Him.

2 Corinthians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 1
3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 15
6so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

In each verse above has the phrase "LORD and Savior," which is not two subject-persons. The grammar sentence structure "LORD and Savior" is exactly the same as "God and Savior". Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior, and also, both Lord and Savior.

Jesus denied being God.

“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone” – Luke 18:19
“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good.” – Matthew 19:17

 

[Mr GLee]

No where do we even read in Scriptures of his humanity being emphasized, like "man" or "Son of man" etc. in relation to his birth. This is one reason why we call Mary the Mother of God because his birth carries the attributes of Divine characteristics. The Divine Nature did NOT assume a human person, but the Divine Person (second Person in the Trinity, God the Son, the Word) assumed a human nature without a human person. The Son-Person is already God according to the Divine Nature and Man upon the assumption according to the Human Nature. While the Divine Nature is automatically present in the joint union by the conjunction in the Son-Person who is "both God and Man". Since the Divine Nature is underived and cannot be begotten, eternally or through physical birth.

Jesus is a son of man; he became a Son of God the first born again of many Christians. At no time did he become eternal God

son of man same as daughters of men. dying mankind who became the gods kind. . new creation born of God not of man.

The whole body of Christ is considered the mother of us all the Trinty I think is a attempt at creating a divine female entity. His and hers gods . That tradition began in Jerimiah.

Women lib demanded a female divine entity the men voted yes to his and hers gods. When Jerimah offered them the gosp[e they refused to hear it and did whatever their own flesh desired. The birth of the Queen of Heaven, many names and titles same spirit of error. Two is one the witness God has spoken. the dynamic dual The Father and Son team

Galatians 4: 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Matthew 12:50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Jesus our brother in the Lord declared. . Marvel not the *son of man" must be born again.

 

[donadams]

Correct.

The Bible doesn't say this. Just stick with Sola Scriptura.

God is indeed Spirit, but you are probably misunderstanding "Holy Spirit" as being a third person who is also God. God is Holy and Spirit, that's just a different name for the Father, but sometimes the Holy Spirit is an anointing.

Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Savior of all people

 

[Binyawmene]

Progressive indoctrination.

Sure. You, as a Unitarian, would argue for a opaque context similar to a first century Jew, like in John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. The 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 their 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. That means this Cherry-Picking fallacy occurs when they focus only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts their Man-Only position.

Let's say you looked up in the New Testament of every Scriptures that says, "Jesus Christ," in order to find out who he is, then you make a final conclusion that "Jesus Christ is man only". Or, maybe you leave the door open to the possibility that "Jesus Christ could be God too" according to the Bible. Well, Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ is both God and Man simultaneously when Scriptures is taken as a whole, in the same way, we believe Jesus Christ is both Rabbi and Prophet when Scriptures is taken as a whole.

For example, From the whole of Scriptures the Gospels 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". Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who that person is. We don't 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.​

​

For example, there are certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is God" (John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc. to be true, (i.e. Also divine titles/names and divine attributes ascribed to Christ can be accounted for, according to the Divine Nature). And certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is Man" (John 8:39-40, Acts 2:22, 1 Timothy 2:5, etc. to be true, (i.e. Also human titles/names and human attributes ascribed to Christ can be account for, according to the Human Nature). The whole of Scriptures is the best interpreter, "Jesus Christ is God," "Jesus Christ is Man," Therefore, "Jesus Christ is both God and Man". This provides a deeper meaning and a clearer picture of the topic.​

In the Unitarian camp are people who hold to the position of "Man-Only" doctrine and anything about Christ's deity is automatically ruled-out. While the "only" part in the phrase is philosophical based since Jesus Christ never claim, "I am not God." And there is also a certain line of illogical reasoning when it comes to Jesus Christ is "man-only" versus Jesus Christ is "also-God." So the Man-Only advocates will ride with a negation that "It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God" argument in spite what the Bible may teaches. And the majority of the time they aren't arguing from the Hypostatic Union position. But rather a denial of what the position declares while you are reinforcing the positive claim. Even when Scriptures are presented, they either ignore or stand in their denial that "Jesus Christ is not God." Some might provide a misrepresentation for an alternative interpretation and their straw men leading to contradictory notions. It's easier for them to take such position.

He did not say "I am who I am" in John 13:19. I do look verses up. Please don't add to scripture.

I'm assuming you don't like the NIV ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι because of its emphasis on Christ's Deity.

I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am who I am.​

The words you're focusing on now, "ego eimi" are the Greek words that are found all over the New Testament. They translate to "I am he" or "I am the man" depending on the context. Many people said this in regards to themselves and it doesn't mean the same thing about what God said in Exodus 3:14. For example, a man who isn't Jesus said "ego eimi" in John 9:9. Doesn't mean he is claiming he is God.

I agree. But it depends upon which verse and its context. For instance, in John 8:58-59 the Jews are not trying to stone Jesus for being the Messiah or for good works. But because he is claiming to be God.

The grammar of this sentence rules Jesus out as being God.

1. Subject and Predicate:
   • Subject: "You" (referring to the Father)
   • Predicate: "the only true God"
2. Article "the":
   • The use of the definite article "the" before "only true God" specifies and emphasizes a particular entity. In this case, it singles out the Father as the only true God.
3. Modifier "only true":
   • The modifiers "only" and "true" further emphasize the uniqueness and genuineness of God. It suggests exclusivity, indicating that there is no other God but the one being addressed as "Father."
4. Word Order:
   • The word order in the phrase places emphasis on "You" as the subject and "the only true God" as the predicate. This syntactical structure reinforces the idea that the Father is the sole possessor of the divine quality of being the only true God.

5. Conjunction "and Jesus Christ" and not an exclusive "or". Now the word "both" or "only" is a predeterminer and alway preceding the conjunction, in this particular case the conjunction is an "and," while the coordinating conjunction connects words, phrases, or sentences together called a compound sentence.

"He is the true God" refers back to the previously mentioned God in the verse who is the Father. John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says the Father is the only God. Ephesians 4:6 says the Father is the only God. The Old Testament says the Father is the Only God.

Not according to the grammar construction of the immediate antecedent. What if John said: "he is the true Messiah;" or "he is the Son of God;" then I'm sure you would agree with immediate antecedent in the grammar construction. But instead, John said: "he is the true God," but since you have a dislike towards the Deity of Christ, you will either restrict and isolate a verse or entire book, or do they ignore them, deny them, or try arguing for a different interpretation.

 

[Runningman]

Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Savior of all people

Not all people will be saved; that isn't what it's talking about. Or are you trying to say you believe in Universal salvation?

 

[Binyawmene]

There was no punctuation in Greek. Therefore, the correct translation of Romans 9:5 is this:

Romans 9 (RSV)
5to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

Actually, its Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς translated as "Christ according to the flesh being over all God".

Great God and Savior Jesus are two different persons.

So, you are riding with the two persons argument. "Great God and Savior" is co-referential expressions to one self-same person, namely Jesus Christ.

Jesus has a God who is the Father. Therefore Jesus isn't God.

Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
17that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in your knowledge of Him.

2 Corinthians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 1
3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 15
6so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”

Yep, that's a common theme of Unitarianism, And they commonly ask: How can Jesus Christ "be God" (Matthew 1:16, John 1:1, 18, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8) and "have a God" (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 17, 1 Peter 1:3) at the same time and in the same sense? Then claim there is a contradiction G ^ ~G or God and not-God. Well, scriptures don't contradict each other but rather harmonize, Jesus Christ is both God and Man. And the Scriptural framework is not teaching that Jesus Christ "being God" and "having a God" in the same sense. Rather, the standpoint of Jesus Christ 'has a God (called the Father) is according to the Human Nature as Man' and not at the standpoint of 'having a God' while 'being God' according to the Divine Nature'.

 

[donadams]

Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

 

[Runningman]

Sure. You, as a Unitarian, would argue for a opaque context similar to a first century Jew, like in John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Contrary to their false accusations, Jesus said he is a man, the Son of God. That's called denying being God.

John 8
40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Word of advice, don't follow the words of the enemies of Jesus. Just follow what Jesus said.

Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. The 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.

If Jesus has anything contrary to the nature of God such as knowledge, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc then he isn't God.

Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God."

Correct.

From their 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. That means this Cherry-Picking fallacy occurs when they focus only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts their Man-Only position.

Stop trying to justify they Pharisees. Jesus flatly denied being God contrary to their accusations.

Let's say you looked up in the New Testament of every Scriptures that says, "Jesus Christ," in order to find out who he is, then you make a final conclusion that "Jesus Christ is man only". Or, maybe you leave the door open to the possibility that "Jesus Christ could be God too" according to the Bible. Well, Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ is both God and Man simultaneously when Scriptures is taken as a whole, in the same way, we believe Jesus Christ is both Rabbi and Prophet when Scriptures is taken as a whole.

Look up who the Father is in the Bible and follow every lead. You should come to the conclusion that He is literally the sole and exclusively God. That means Jesus isn't God.

For example, From the whole of Scriptures the Gospels 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". Even though there are two distinctive Scriptural references describing who that person is. We don't 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.​

Try Acts 3:13 where Peter said that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but is rather His servant. That means Peter didn't believe Jesus is God.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Compare it to Exodus 3 where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is none other than YHWH.

Exodus 3
15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD[YHWH], the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

​

For example, there are certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is God" (John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc.​

Refuted them in my previous post. They do not claim Jesus is God.

to be true, (i.e. Also divine titles/names and divine attributes ascribed to Christ can be accounted for, according to the Divine Nature).​

Divine nature isn't exclusive to Jesus or God. It applies to regular people too.

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

And certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is Man" (John 8:39-40, Acts 2:22, 1 Timothy 2:5, etc. to be true, (i.e. Also human titles/names and human attributes ascribed to Christ can be account for, according to the Human Nature). The whole of Scriptures is the best interpreter, "Jesus Christ is God," "Jesus Christ is Man," Therefore, "Jesus Christ is both God and Man". This provides a deeper meaning and a clearer picture of the topic.​

Begin with the fact that God denied being a man.

Hosea 11
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.

In the Unitarian camp...

The difference between Unitarians and yourself is that we believe what Jesus stated about himself and his God. You may say you believe what he said about himself, but then you add to it and justify your position using the argument from ignorance logical fallacy, i.e., "Jesus never said he isn't God therefore he's God..." is tantamount to the absurdity of "Jesus never said he isn't a cheese pizza therefore he is a cheese pizza."

I'm assuming you don't like the NIV ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι because of its emphasis on Christ's Deity.

I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am who I am.​

The NIV is on an island alone with that translation. The point still stands that when ego eimi is translated throughout the entire Seputagint and New Testament it isn't worded like this.

I agree. But it depends upon which verse and its context. For instance, in John 8:58-59 the Jews are not trying to stone Jesus for being the Messiah or for good works. But because he is claiming to be God.

False. Contrary to those claims, in John 8:40 Jesus said he is a man not God. That's called denying being God. God said He isn't a man in Hosea 11:9. For your interpretation to be true, Jesus would have had to lie. I know Jesus didn't lie.

5. Conjunction "and Jesus Christ" and not an exclusive "or". Now the word "both" or "only" is a predeterminer and alway preceding the conjunction, in this particular case the conjunction is an "and," while the coordinating conjunction connects words, phrases, or sentences together called a compound sentence.

John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. This is repeated in 1 Corinthians 8:7, Ephesians 4:6, 1 John 5:20, and Malachi 2:10.

Since you seemed to have deceived yourself into denying John 17:3, what methods will you use for the rest of the Bible that says otherwise?

Not according to the grammar construction of the immediate antecedent. What if John said: "he is the true Messiah;" or "he is the Son of God;" then I'm sure you would agree with immediate antecedent in the grammar construction. But instead, John said: "he is the true God," but since you have a dislike towards the Deity of Christ, you will either restrict and isolate a verse or entire book, or do they ignore them, deny them, or try arguing for a different interpretation.

Subject and predicate of John 17:1-3 are in agreement that the one being referred to as the only true God is the Father because that's who Jesus is talking to. You may disagree or not like this, but English grammar isn't concerned with your feelings or religion. Anyone who knows English, and is honest, will take away from John 17:1-3 that the Father is the only true God and that rules Jesus out as being God.

What you're doing is simply arguing in favor of Jesus being God, but that requires a bit of loss of credibility and falling on your own sword. Don't deny God just to defend your beliefs.

 

[Runningman]

Actually, its Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς translated as "Christ according to the flesh being over all God".

As I already stated, there was no english punctuation in the Greek. Therefore Jesus is not God. Read the context.

Ask yourself a simple question. Is God a man who is an Israelite under the Old Covenant and Law who worships God? Does your God possess the race of an ethnic Jew and is a man of flesh named Jesus Christ? Then that's idolatry and it's a sin. Men cannot be God. Therefore, the translation your proposing contradicts itself. I maintain the RSV is correct because it eliminates the problem of God being a Jewish man from Israel.

Romans 9 (RSV)
1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

So, you are riding with the two persons argument. "Great God and Savior" is co-referential expressions to one self-same person, namely Jesus Christ.

Great God and Savior Jesus are two persons all over the entire Bible as I have already shown you.

You can plug in any adjective and person you want and get the same result.

Great Runningman and Savior Binyawmene = two persons
Great George and Savior Ralph = two persons

Matthew 1:16,

Luke 3:38 says Jesus is descended from Adam. God isn't descended from Adam. Adam is descended from God and Adam isn't God nor are any of the descendants of Adam.

John 1:1,18, 20:28

Jesus said that the Father is the only true God in John 17:3. You aren't understanding those. John 1:1 doesn't mention Jesus. John 1:18 says Jesus was the begotten son. God isn't begotten. Thomas didn't say to Jesus "You are God."

Romans 9:5

Doesn't say Jesus is God.

Titus 2:13

Great God and Savior Jesus are two different persons through out the Bible. It didn't suddenly change in Titus 2:13

2 Peter 1:1,

2 Peter 1:2 says Jesus is not God.

Hebrews 1:8

Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from Psalm 45 that speaks of a human king with a queen. Jesus doesn't have a queen and neither does God. It isn't about Jesus being God.

(Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 17, 1 Peter 1:3) at the same time and in the same sense? Then claim there is a contradiction G ^ ~G or God and not-God.

Jesus is a man with a God. That means Jesus is not God, otherwise it's polytheism.

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Well, scriptures don't contradict each other but rather harmonize, Jesus Christ is both God and Man. And the Scriptural framework is not teaching that Jesus Christ "being God" and "having a God" in the same sense. Rather, the standpoint of Jesus Christ 'has a God (called the Father) is according to the Human Nature as Man' and not at the standpoint of 'having a God' while 'being God' according to the Divine Nature'.

Nothing in the Bible says Jesus is God when taken into appropriate context and understanding. There are no contradictions. As John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Ephesians 4:6 plainly say, there is only one God known as the Father. The Bible is a Unitarians book.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sure. You, as a Unitarian, would argue for a opaque context similar to a first century Jew, like in John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. The 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 their 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. That means this Cherry-Picking fallacy occurs when they focus only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts their Man-Only position.

That does not mean the Jesu the Son of man was God Almighty . God is not a man he is eternal Spirit without beginning or end of days ..
Jesus Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of the eternal Father.

When they claimed blasphemy jesus was not claiming to be God but one of the many born agin children as sons of God , He declared whoever does the will of the anointing father the same is his brother sister and mother.

Jesus was not claiming to be the Father. Again all Christian are sons of God . . .sola scriptura cannot be broken aded to or subtracted form ith the oral tradition of dying mankind.

John 10:34-36King James Version Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The son of man Jesus did not sanctify the Holy Father.

In the new born again family of God we call no man on earth Holy Father one not a legion is in heaven . We pray our Father in heaven not our fathers .

 

[Binyawmene]

Contrary to their false accusations, Jesus said he is a man, the Son of God. That's called denying being God.

I would assume that you lack basic logical reasoning. It's nothing to be ashamed of since that is what you were taught in Unitarianism. Many Unitarians I had discussions with have mistakenly assume that pointing out Jesus Christ is a "man" is somehow a negation of him being "God."

Here is the basic logic: A negation is basically means the "opposite" of what it is essentially, for example: not-God opposite of God, or not-man opposite of man. In other words, "If ~G is true, then G is false, or if G is true, then ~G is false. A negated ~G has the opposite truth value of G, conversely, a G has the opposite truth value of negated ~G." Your faulty reasoning has the opposite of "man" to mean "not-God," which has no truth value.​

Negation ~G
Jesus Christ is God.
Opposite
It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God.

Negation ~M
Jesus Christ is Man.
Opposite
It's not the case that Jesus Christ is Man.​

As I have previously said before,

...We don't 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.​

Unless you plan on violating the basic rules in logic. So, when you come across Scriptures that specifically alluding to the fact that Jesus Christ is a man or his humanity while in that specific scripture there is no mention of Christ is God or his Deity. That doesn't rule-out the idea that "Jesus Christ is not-God" that a lot of Unitarians assumes. Look at the Two-sided Coin analogy. You can say a penny has a "tails" side and is true without qualification. And you can also qualify another statement by saying its 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. 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.

Begin with the fact that God denied being a man.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the verse. But I agree that "God is man" as being an incorrect phraseology in the Hypostatic Union doctrine. That to me is a category mistake which is an ontological error. We say, "both God and man" and we don't claim "God is man." What you are doing is proof-texting: (Numbers 23: 19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hosea 11:9) and comparing 'both apples and oranges,' which is a false analogy. Since God and nan cannot be practically compared, typically because of inherent, fundamental and/or qualitative differences between them.

Because we can obviously disagree about the cutoff points for what we consider to be "God" or what we consider to be "Man". Then by simply pointing out the different attributes, like God as omniscient and Man as lacking in knowledge. That doesn't mean God lacks knowledge, for there is obviously a difference between God and Man, and they do not have the same sense. The logical conjunction G ^ M doesn't mean that Man negates over God to be G ^ (~G).

Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus Christ is Man.
But God is not Man and Man is not God.

A Penny is heads.
A Penny is tails.
But heads is not tails and tails is not heads.​

There is a difference between God "in-framework" and God "is-framework." The “union” is indicated by the preposition “in” (Hypostatic Union). In other words, the doctrine of the incarnation simply which means "the act of coming in the flesh" or "God in the flesh" (John 1:1, 14, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7, 1 Timothy 3:16) and there is no Scriptures for the "is-framework" that "God is essentially flesh in nature" (or God is literally the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones) to imply that God is physical. For example, Jesus Christ being Fully Human is derived from the human nature being composed of the whole body and soul/spirit, with all of the human attributes and properties. That is what qualify him as human. And "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person. Rather it's what the natures have constituted what the Son-person to be, like: the Divine Nature constitutes the Son-person to be God and the Human Nature constitutes the selfsame Son-person to be Man.

 

[grace2]

I would assume that you lack basic logical reasoning. It's nothing to be ashamed of since that is what you were taught in Unitarianism.

Excuse me for butting in. But we learned from the Bible.

On the other hand, you are only following traditional triune god worshipping churches which is not of Jesus.

Neither the Bible nor Jesus teaches triune god, it is made up.

 

[Runningman]

I would assume that you lack basic logical reasoning. It's nothing to be ashamed of since that is what you were taught in Unitarianism. Many Unitarians I had discussions with have mistakenly assume that pointing out Jesus Christ is a "man" is somehow a negation of him being "God."

Here is the basic logic: A negation is basically means the "opposite" of what it is essentially, for example: not-God opposite of God, or not-man opposite of man. In other words, "If ~G is true, then G is false, or if G is true, then ~G is false. A negated ~G has the opposite truth value of G, conversely, a G has the opposite truth value of negated ~G." Your faulty reasoning has the opposite of "man" to mean "not-God," which has no truth value.​

Negation ~G
Jesus Christ is God.
Opposite
It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God.

Negation ~M
Jesus Christ is Man.
Opposite
It's not the case that Jesus Christ is Man.​

As I have previously said before,

...We don't 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.​

You have poor reading comprehension skills it seems. You also quote single verses completely out of context that ended up getting debunked by Jesus himself just a few verses later.

Here is where yours and the Pharisee's misunderstanding began.

John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Jesus immediately pivoted and debunked it, saying he is the Son of God. Son of God does not mean God. God is the Father as Jesus already stated in John 17:3. You are not arguing against me. You're arguing against Jesus.

John 10
36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Unless you plan on violating the basic rules in logic. So, when you come across Scriptures that specifically alluding to the fact that Jesus Christ is a man or his humanity while in that specific scripture there is no mention of Christ is God or his Deity. That doesn't rule-out the idea that "Jesus Christ is not-God" that a lot of Unitarians assumes. Look at the Two-sided Coin analogy. You can say a penny has a "tails" side and is true without qualification. And you can also qualify another statement by saying its 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. 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.

You don't have any room to talk about logic. You've lost logic as a tool, as a self-admitted Trinitarian, and have no idea what you're talking about. With a straight face you say that God is three persons who are one God. That isn't Trinitarianism then, that would be polytheism and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the verse. But I agree that "God is man"

God said He isn't a man in Hosea 11:9. A human being as God is idolatry for the same reason a statue or animal as God is idolatry.

as being an incorrect phraseology in the Hypostatic Union doctrine. That to me is a category mistake which is an ontological error. We say, "both God and man" and we don't claim "God is man." What you are doing is proof-texting: (Numbers 23: 19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hosea 11:9) and comparing 'both apples and oranges,' which is a false analogy. Since God and nan cannot be practically compared, typically because of inherent, fundamental and/or qualitative differences between them.

Paul debunked the hypostatic union heresy in Philippians 2:5-11, telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus who existed in the form (form, shape, outward appearance, i.e., godly holy, etc) while concluding that the only God who receives glory is the Father. Paul told them to also exist in the form of God.

Because we can obviously disagree about the cutoff points for what we consider to be "God" or what we consider to be "Man". Then by simply pointing out the different attributes, like God as omniscient and Man as lacking in knowledge. That doesn't mean God lacks knowledge, for there is obviously a difference between God and Man, and they do not have the same sense. The logical conjunction G ^ M doesn't mean that Man negates over God to be G ^ (~G).

Jesus is only a man. A man died for our sins. We have a big problem if God died, as you seem to be saying. If Jesus didn't really die, but his spirit sped off to safety somewhere else, then Jesus didn't die and you are still in your sins. I hope that helps you sort it out.

Jesus Christ is God.​

Not according to scripture.

Jesus Christ is Man.​

Correct.

But God is not Man and Man is not God.​

Correct.

​

A Penny is heads.​

A Penny is tails.​

But heads is not tails and tails is not heads.​

The comparison you're attempting to make between a penny and an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God who is a Spirit is nonsense. You're using a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy that presents two extreme options while ignoring all middle ground between the two.

There is a difference between God "in-framework" and God "is-framework." The “union” is indicated by the preposition “in” (Hypostatic Union). In other words, the doctrine of the incarnation simply which means "the act of coming in the flesh" or "God in the flesh" (John 1:1, 14, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7, 1 Timothy 3:16) and there is no Scriptures for the "is-framework" that "God is essentially flesh in nature" (or God is literally the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones) to imply that God is physical. For example, Jesus Christ being Fully Human is derived from the human nature being composed of the whole body and soul/spirit, with all of the human attributes and properties. That is what qualify him as human. And "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person. Rather it's what the natures have constituted what the Son-person to be, like: the Divine Nature constitutes the Son-person to be God and the Human Nature constitutes the selfsame Son-person to be Man.

Or the simple explanation that is intuitive from reading the Bible is that Jesus isn't God. He even denied it in Luke 18:19, Matt 19:17, John 8:40, and John 10:36. This is explained concisely and explicitly using scripture and is simple enough anyone can understand it without long, convoluted, explanations that don't actually say what the Bible says. When you stop saying what the Bible says is when you are promoting an interpretation and a theology; that isn't scripture.

 

[donadams]

Not all people will be saved; that isn't what it's talking about. Or are you trying to say you believe in Universal salvation?

No, but Christ is the savior and scripture says the savior is God! Lk 1:47

 

[Runningman]

No, but Christ is the savior and scripture says the savior is God! Lk 1:47

John 3:16,17 says the God sent Jesus to save the world through him.

This adequately demonstrates that God and Jesus aren't the same person. God did the sending and saving through Jesus, but Jesus was instrumental. They can work together without being the same person.

God chose Jesus as His servant.

Matt 12
18“Here is My Servant,
whom I have chosen,
My beloved,
in whom My soul delights.
I will put My Spirit on Him,
and He will proclaim justice to the nations.

 

[grace2]

John 3:16,17 says the God sent Jesus to save the world through him.

This adequately demonstrates that God and Jesus aren't the same person. God did the sending and saving through Jesus, but Jesus was instrumental. They can work together without being the same person.

God chose Jesus as His servant.

Matt 12
18“Here is My Servant,
whom I have chosen,
My beloved,
in whom My soul delights.
I will put My Spirit on Him,
and He will proclaim justice to the nations.

well said

 

[Binyawmene]

You have poor reading comprehension skills it seems. You also quote single verses completely out of context that ended up getting debunked by Jesus himself just a few verses later.

Not true, but that's fine. You are entailed to your opinion. The reason why I didn't address your interpretation because you misunderstood the original point about opaque context in light of progressive revelation.

You, as a Unitarian, would argue for a opaque context similar to a first century Jew, like in John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."​

Here is the point, at that particular time era, when the Son walked the earth, there was no other God, then the Father. After all, the prayers of Jesus Christ is always in reference to a single person, the Father and not to the Trinity. This is in alignment to the Jewish laws, customs, and beliefs for the purpose and redemption of mankind. The Jewish people wouldn't know about the progressive revelation about God being triune or the Deity of Christ. They were clueless about the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Take the example of Clark Kent and Superman, we considered to be co-referential expressions of the self-same person. That doesn’t mean that people’s knowledge of them is also identical. They don't have that extensional context. I, and you, we both know that Clark Kent is, in fact, Superman. Even though you can trivially say that “people know that Superman is Superman only," it won’t necessarily be truthful to say that “people know that Clark Kent is Superman” (substitute “Superman” with “Clark Kent”), because what people know about Superman isn’t identical to what people know about Clark Kent.

For instance, consider the following example of an opaque context:

Premise 1: Lois Lane thinks Superman can fly.
Premise 2: Lois Lane thinks Clark Kent cannot fly.
Conclusion: Therefore Superman and Clark Kent are not the same person.​

You don't have any room to talk about logic.

You must be upset because I've debunked your faulty argument. And I've demonstrated it though the proper usage of logic and basic hermeneutics. You shouldn't use that argument anymore. It's laugh at, even to though who knows only basic logic. Your whole argument was hinged upon "Jesus Christ is man negates him being God and God is only one person the Father." Only thing you really have left is soapbox rantings and appeal to emotion. At this point, there is no need to address your interpretation of the Scriptures I've presented. The case has already been made and you only have denials.

As I have previously said:

So the Man-Only advocates will ride with a negation that "It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God" argument in spite what the Bible may teaches. And the majority of the time they aren't arguing from the Hypostatic Union position. But rather a denial of what the position declares while you are reinforcing the positive claim. Even when Scriptures are presented, they either ignore or stand in their denial that "Jesus Christ is not God." Some might provide a misrepresentation for an alternative interpretation and their straw men leading to contradictory notions. It's easier for them to take such position.​

That pretty much describes you.

 

[Runningman]

Not true, but that's fine. You are entailed to your opinion.

Don't need opinions. Just sola scriptura.

The reason why I didn't address your interpretation because you misunderstood the original point about opaque context in light of progressive revelation.

You, as a Unitarian, would argue for a opaque context similar to a first century Jew, like in John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."​

But you believe Jesus, a man, claimed to be God. I don't. You are parroting exactly what they are saying. LoL. Once more, to the contrary, Jesus did say he is a man, but didn't say he is God because that would have been false. Jesus never said he is God. The Old Testament doesn't say he's God, he wasn't God after his resurrection, and after he was carried to heaven they kept calling him a man decades later.

Here is the point, at that particular time era, when the Son walked the earth, there was no other God, then the Father. After all, the prayers of Jesus Christ is always in reference to a single person, the Father and not to the Trinity. This is in alignment to the Jewish laws, customs, and beliefs for the purpose and redemption of mankind. The Jewish people wouldn't know about the progressive revelation about God being triune or the Deity of Christ. They were clueless about the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No one in the Bible "prayed" to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Seriously, feel free to look and see if the word prayer is ever used in conjunction with communicating with Jesus. It simply doesn't exist.

Take the example of Clark Kent and Superman, we considered to be co-referential expressions of the self-same person. That doesn’t mean that people’s knowledge of them is also identical. They don't have that extensional context. I, and you, we both know that Clark Kent is, in fact, Superman. Even though you can trivially say that “people know that Superman is Superman only," it won’t necessarily be truthful to say that “people know that Clark Kent is Superman” (substitute “Superman” with “Clark Kent”), because what people know about Superman isn’t identical to what people know about Clark Kent.

For instance, consider the following example of an opaque context:

Premise 1: Lois Lane thinks Superman can fly.​

Premise 2: Lois Lane thinks Clark Kent cannot fly.​

Conclusion: Therefore Superman and Clark Kent are not the same person.​

But Clark Kent would say he is Superman. Jesus never said he is God. What are you on about.

You must be upset because I've debunked your faulty argument. And I've demonstrated it though the proper usage of logic and basic hermeneutics. You shouldn't use that argument anymore. It's laugh at, even to though who knows only basic logic. Your whole argument was hinged upon "Jesus Christ is man negates him being God and God is only one person the Father." Only thing you really have left is soapbox rantings and appeal to emotion. At this point, there is no need to address your interpretation of the Scriptures I've presented. The case has already been made and you only have denials.

I am not upset. I am perfectly fine and content with how this conversation has gone for me.

You on the other hand have no business laying claim to having logic or a basic understanding of hermeneutics.

For starters, your "Trinity" is a mystery as most Trinitarians will admit. No one has figured it out, though they try, but haven't quite accepted it's an incomprehensible mystery because it's actually nonsense. You are saying you have the logic and hermeneutics to teach a mystery that no one in your religion fully understands. You accept a mystery, not logic, for your understanding.

Two, essentially what your premise is is that the Scripture does not have to make sense. For example, the Trinity is not explicitly stated or described in the Bible and yet here you are believing in it and telling others to do the same. The Trinity is pieced together by telling others which verses to look at and in which way to understand them. Jesus or the apostles never "revealed" which verses to go look at in order to piece together the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity isn't scripture. I hope you can at least admit that. That means it's still a great mystery.

You cannot understand John 17:3 because logic does allude you. I have watched you both deny the Father is the only true God and also fiddle with the grammar to try to shoehorn Jesus in it as God too. That isn't logical my friend.

As I have previously said:

So the Man-Only advocates will ride with a negation that "It's not the case that Jesus Christ is God" argument in spite what the Bible may teaches. And the majority of the time they aren't arguing from the Hypostatic Union position. But rather a denial of what the position declares while you are reinforcing the positive claim. Even when Scriptures are presented, they either ignore or stand in their denial that "Jesus Christ is not God." Some might provide a misrepresentation for an alternative interpretation and their straw men leading to contradictory notions. It's easier for them to take such position.​

That pretty much describes you.

Jesus is a man, he said so himself. I believe Philippians 2 debunks the hypostatic union, but I have yet to see how to find in scripture where it is stated that Jesus is a Man God. I am open to hearing if you have scripture on the matter, rather than commentary. Also, no hard feelings. I like you, but you are not speaking the truth of the Bible.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would assume that you lack basic logical reasoning. It's nothing to be ashamed of since that is what you were taught in Unitarianism. Many Unitarians I had discussions with have mistakenly assume that pointing out Jesus Christ is a "man" is somehow a negation of him being "God."

Here is the basic logic: A negation is basically means the "opposite" of what it is essentially, for example: not-God opposite of God, or not-man opposite of man. In other words, "If ~G is true, then G is false, or if G is true, then ~G is false. A negated ~G has the opposite truth value of G, conversely, a G has the opposite truth value of negated ~G." Your faulty reasoning has the opposite of "man" to mean "not-God," which has no truth value.

Where did you get that kind of reasoning from? Certainly not the Bible

Here is the basic law of God. God is not a man.

The product of the Creator is the creation

The opposite of man is not a man

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Why would someone desire to make our invisible God a visible creation? How is that walking by Christ's faith the unseen things of God

We are to follow after the unseen invisible things of God .Called walking by faith or understand after the things not seen the eternal

Why puff up the flesh of dying mankind the temporal seen above that of the Creator?
Note (purple) by offering

Roman 1>20-25 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,(the temporal) even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,But did as if dying mankind was God neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,(no God in their heart) And changed the( invisible)glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,(Jesus the Son of man) and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Jesus the Son of man )more than the Creator(Father), who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Where do you find God is a man ?

 

[donadams]

One divine nature / two unique persons

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

They forget that Jesus has two natures and two wills in one divine person!