Jesus - First Born?

[amazing grace]

I’m so glad there’s so much we agree on. But there are areas where we disagree - or do not yet agree.

The aspect of being sin and sinlessness, I believe, doesn’t have any dealings with DNA nor Chromosones.

Neither do I but I have heard it said by some trinitarians that Jesus carried God's DNA. It's just hard sometimes to express my position as to how and why Jesus had to be created in order to be our perfect Passover Lamb without blemish.

It is the desire to gain something that we do not possess or something greater than we already possess. Hence the first sin was concerning gaining the knowledge of Good and Bad. It’s not to say that Adam and Eve would never have done anything bad by their own knowledge but that I’m not knowing good or bad, God would have forgiven them. But Satan put it into the kind of (firstly, Eve) that God had lied to Adam that if he sought to know good and bad THEY would die - but Satan lied that it would be an IMMEDIATE DEATH. Hence when Eve showed herself to Adam thag she had eaten and not died he too ate - instead of ‘berating’ Eve for going against the command of God.

Take also Satan. He desired to be worshipped by mankind as God was worshipped by mankind. He desired to gain something that was not his entitlement.

Take Cain. He desired praise from God although his presentations were not of the quality that God desired.

There are many more:
King Saul, in desiring to know if he should fight the Philistines, did not wait for God’s guidance through the prophet Samuel but instead sought what was not his to seek: Information from an evil source; the Witch of Endor.
David, though vastly gifted by God, sought the wife of another man so hotly that he designed a way for the man to be killed so ‘legally’ he could possess her as a widow.

But Jesus Christ resisted the desire of gain by means of abusing the holy powers God had anointed him with. Though starving and weak from hunger, Jesus refused to turn the stones to bread and save himself.

Again, Jesus resisted the desire of gain glory by jumping off the top of the temple and not hurting himself, and also did not bow to the glory of gaining all the kingdoms of the world by ‘simply WORSHIPPING’ Satan.

I would not say DNA or Chromosones dictate desire for false gain. I would put it down more to something mindful and therefore ‘of the Spirit of a person’. Therefore, the Spirit of a child is from the Spirit of the Father (it is his sperm that ENLIVENS the egg in the woman) - and therefore the ‘sin spirit’ is passed onto the child… hence when the Spirit of God enlivens the egg there is no contamination of the child spiritually since the holy Spirit is pure.

But this does not make the child from God an immediate ‘Son OF God’. The Sonship is by REMAINING SINLESS and doing the works of God (evidently if one is doing the works of God then one is sinless!!)

It should also be evident that Adam, in the day of his creation and up until he sinned, WAS THE ONLY HUMAN SON OF GOD. But, after sinning, he was no longer entitled to that title, hence now Jesus Christ is rightfully stated as ‘The Only Son of God’ since he remains sinless and is fully doing the works of God.

Adam was created perfectly - "And God saw all that he had made, and behold it was very good." When Adam sinned, it resulted in "sin came into the world and death through sin". It also broke that intimate relationship between God and man. So God's plan to "fix" this was set forth in Gen. 3:15. Then throughout the OT, prophecies were given concerning this coming prophet, servant, anointed King, etc. None of the prophecies were about God coming to earth "clothed in flesh as a man", i.e the incarnation. I think you would agree here.

Now, we can discuss creating. Creation is the means by which God has brought things to pass outside of that which would occur naturally. He caused a human life to begin in the womb of Mary by an act of supernatural creation, not mystical incarnation (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:35). Then He had to work with the growing child to help him maintain his sinless condition (until the time he was anointed with holy spirit and be empowered to do the work God gave Him to do. The concept that Jesus was "God in the flesh" nullifies the absolute necessity of Jesus's obedience, because as God, no temptation he faced would be genuine. God cannot be tempted because God cannot sin and IMO devalues the life of Jesus.

Further, Romans 5:12-19 clearly defines a logical parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ in the context of the redemption of mankind. A major consequence of the doctrine that God became man is that it destroys this key parallel, for Adam is hardly comparable to an eternally pre-existent being. Rather, he was a created being made in the image of the One who created him, God. Adam was not “fully man and fully God,” “100 percent man and 100 percent God,” “coequal with God the Father,” or “of the same substance as the Father.” Adam was a created, empowered being who chose to disobey a direct command of God, with dire consequences to himself and all mankind as a result. (a lot of this information and wording came from biblicalunitarian.com - created or incarnate)

I don’t think that is what scriptures says. The rulership of Jesus Christ over the created world is an EVERLASTING rulership. Scriptures certainly states that the throne of king David will be an eternal throne upon which an offspring of David will be eternally seated.
This eternal throne is not in Heaven and angels are not administrators with Jesus as they were with God. Almighty God, will STILL be God over the Heavenly realm. The new Heavens and the new earth possibly mean ‘a new galaxy or star system’ or just a new ruling administrative line up… who knows? I will look further into this aspect.

But "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and authority and power . . . . When all things are in subjection to him (Jesus), then the Son himself will also subjected to him (God) who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." Could it be, when Jesus hands over His Kingdom, i.e. the Millennial Kingdom, that God sits upon His throne and the Son sits at His right hand in the eternal kingdom?

 

[Brian2]

But people can only go as far as they have been taught and they don't understand that they devalue the concept of Jesus Christ placing him in the position of "God" - for nothing is impossible for God - so the accomplishments of Jesus' walk of righteousness are meaningless. But for a man to do what Jesus did is not only a great accomplishment worthy of everlasting merit, it also sets a legitimate standard for what we too can do as we follow his example of faith in his God.

I also believe that Jesus was a real human being created by God's power - His Spirit - in order that Jesus would have a pure "blood line" not inheriting the sin nature from Adam as all other humans who are created by a man and woman do. (Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood ....) In conception between a man and woman - DNA, chromosomes, etc. make up the child conceived - none of that passed from God to Mary so God miraculously placed with Mary's egg that which was needed for the egg to conceive making Jesus His only begotten Son. I believe when he was baptized, he received the "Spirit without measure" (John 3:34) to empower him in his ministry upon earth.

Do you think it is easier for Jesus to avoid sin without a sin nature?
Why do you deny that the Trinitarian Son of God could have come to earth and live as a man and be tempted as all humans are?

 

[amazing grace]

Do you think it is easier for Jesus to avoid sin without a sin nature?
Why do you deny that the Trinitarian Son of God could have come to earth and live as a man and be tempted as all humans are?

I believe the Lamb of God had to be without blemish which would include the sin nature passed on to all men. Did it make it easier? No and apparently wasn't easy for the first Adam either only he failed when he was tempted disobeying God whereas Jesus accomplished what he was sent to do - remaining sinless, perfect and pure to be the sacrifice required for the salvation of mankind.

Because the Trinitarian Son of God is not the Son of God but God the Son, i.e. God himself come to earth as a man. God cannot be "tempted in every respect as we are" - it is not possible for God to sin - any temptation would not have been genuine.

 

[Brian2]

I believe the Lamb of God had to be without blemish which would include the sin nature passed on to all men. Did it make it easier? No and apparently wasn't easy for the first Adam either only he failed when he was tempted disobeying God whereas Jesus accomplished what he was sent to do - remaining sinless, perfect and pure to be the sacrifice required for the salvation of mankind.

Because the Trinitarian Son of God is not the Son of God but God the Son, i.e. God himself come to earth as a man. God cannot be "tempted in every respect as we are" - it is not possible for God to sin - any temptation would not have been genuine.

The Trinitarian Son of God is fully man and fully God in nature, essence.
With what Hebrews tells us about Jesus, I hope also that you believe He has the nature/essence of God and had it while on earth.

Heb1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

And I hope you believe He was and is fully man also.
For the trinitarian Christian Jesus lived fully as a man even after having been empowered by the Holy Spirit to do His ministry, do miracles and speak the words of God.
Jesus fought temptation as any human being might but did not sin. He could have chosen, as a man with a will, to sin, but did not because He came to do His Father's will.

The Lamb of God had to be a man who was sinless, and the Trinitarian Christ was that.
It is not that Trinitarians deny that need.
You say that nothing is impossible for God and yet you deny that He can send His Son, with the same nature as He has, and that this Son can be tempted to sin.
God who is a Spirit cannot be tempted with any carnal evil but the Son who is a man, in His human nature, can be tempted, and was.
Interestingly Jesus said that only God is good and you seem to be saying that Christ was perfectly good without being God.
In that respect we can also remember that YHWH asked in Isaiah, "Who is like me that I can be compared to?" and in the NT we find that the Son is exactly like YHWH.
In that respect also we can remember that YHWH said in Isaiah that He would not share His glory with another, and in the NT we find that the Son shines with the glory of God.

The man Jesus had a will and chose not to sin and it is the nature of a man to be tempted to go against the will of God. But as a man with the character of God He was able to resist.

I am not a young earth creationist but sometimes they are right about other things. The following site is interesting when it comes to the question of whether Jesus could have sinned and what it means when it says that God is not tempted by evil.

Contradictions: Can God Be Tempted?

The Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted by evil, so why do other passages speak of God being tempted? Chris Russell, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

Here is a quote from the article.
We should also consider Deuteronomy 6:16, which instructs the Israelites to be careful that they do not to tempt the Lord. Likewise, Malachi 3:15 refers to the wicked who tempt God with their evil lifestyles. Jesus even quoted the Old Testament Scriptures when He warned others not to tempt the Lord (e.g., Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12).

Today we mostly use the term tempt specifically to mean to “solicit to do evil.” However, the term has not always been quite so narrowly interpreted. In the Bible this word conveys that idea at times, but at other times it means to “put to the test.” The context helps to determine which meaning is intended.

James clearly stated, “God cannot be tempted by evil” (emphasis added). The phrase “by evil” is important because it highlights the point James was trying to make. This clearly indicates that God cannot be enticed to commit evil.

 

[amazing grace]

The Trinitarian Son of God is fully man and fully God in nature, essence.
With what Hebrews tells us about Jesus, I hope also that you believe He has the nature/essence of God and had it while on earth.

Heb1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

And I hope you believe He was and is fully man also.
For the trinitarian Christian Jesus lived fully as a man even after having been empowered by the Holy Spirit to do His ministry, do miracles and speak the words of God.
Jesus fought temptation as any human being might but did not sin. He could have chosen, as a man with a will, to sin, but did not because He came to do His Father's will.

Yes, I understand the Trinitarian concept of the Son of God. He was God and man - a "god-man" or God come to earth as a man - no such thing. I believe that Jesus Christ was fully man just Adam was and just as we are. Why did the Son of God have to be God?

The Lamb of God had to be a man who was sinless, and the Trinitarian Christ was that.
It is not that Trinitarians deny that need.
You say that nothing is impossible for God and yet you deny that He can send His Son, with the same nature as He has, and that this Son can be tempted to sin.
God who is a Spirit cannot be tempted with any carnal evil but the Son who is a man, in His human nature, can be tempted, and was.
Interestingly Jesus said that only God is good and you seem to be saying that Christ was perfectly good without being God.
In that respect we can also remember that YHWH asked in Isaiah, "Who is like me that I can be compared to?" and in the NT we find that the Son is exactly like YHWH.
In that respect also we can remember that YHWH said in Isaiah that He would not share His glory with another, and in the NT we find that the Son shines with the glory of God.

The man Jesus had a will and chose not to sin and it is the nature of a man to be tempted to go against the will of God. But as a man with the character of God He was able to resist.

Yes, the Lamb of God had to be a real man who could have sinned but remained obedient unto death. The Trinitarian Christ is not a real man but a "god-man", God clothed in flesh come to earth. It's best to be honest with oneself.
Nothing is impossible for God BUT God will not become one of his created beings - not a rock, a tree, a bird, nor a man.
God cannot be tempted with evil therefore if Jesus was in any way God - the temptations were for nothing.
Yes, Jesus said only God was good. Jesus did what he did and taught what he taught because of God’s guidance, and he gave God the credit.
Yes, Yahweh asked "To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal? says the Holy One." No one else is THE Holy One - Almighty God. No one else is His equal. Jesus Christ was not equal to God - remember Jesus says of himself that he can do nothing on his own (John 5:19, 30; 7:16; 8:28; 12:49, 50) - Jesus Christ came to declare or make known, i.e. to show us God.
Jesus Christ reflected God's glory - "the brightness of God's glory" - God's glory is reflected through His Son. As for John 17:5 Jesus was praying that the glory the Old Testament foretold he would have would come into concretion, i.e. come into manifestation. We can tell that Jesus was speaking of being in God’s foreknowledge from the immediate context. Just two verses earlier, in John 17:3, Jesus said that the Father was “the only true God.” Jesus could not have prayed that while at the same time thinking he was God too. Furthermore, Jesus spoke again about things in God’s foreknowledge in John 17:22 when he said that he had given the glory from God to his disciples. But that had not happened yet either.

I am not a young earth creationist but sometimes they are right about other things. The following site is interesting when it comes to the question of whether Jesus could have sinned and what it means when it says that God is not tempted by evil.

Contradictions: Can God Be Tempted?

The Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted by evil, so why do other passages speak of God being tempted? Chris Russell, AiG–U.S., explains.

answersingenesis.org

Here is a quote from the article.
We should also consider Deuteronomy 6:16, which instructs the Israelites to be careful that they do not to tempt the Lord. Likewise, Malachi 3:15 refers to the wicked who tempt God with their evil lifestyles. Jesus even quoted the Old Testament Scriptures when He warned others not to tempt the Lord (e.g., Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12).

Today we mostly use the term tempt specifically to mean to “solicit to do evil.” However, the term has not always been quite so narrowly interpreted. In the Bible this word conveys that idea at times, but at other times it means to “put to the test.” The context helps to determine which meaning is intended.

James clearly stated, “God cannot be tempted by evil” (emphasis added). The phrase “by evil” is important because it highlights the point James was trying to make. This clearly indicates that God cannot be enticed to commit evil.

I understand that God cannot be tempted with evil - Just because Jesus did not fall for the temptation does not mean he was God and I would think Satan tempting Jesus to worship him would be evil - so if Jesus was God in any form or fashion - he would not have been tempted in every respect as we are because as God, the temptation would have meant nothing and Satan tempted him for no reason at all.

 

[Oeste]

I understand that God cannot be tempted with evil - Just because Jesus did not fall for the temptation does not mean he was God and I would think Satan tempting Jesus to worship him would be evil - so if Jesus was God in any form or fashion - he would not have been tempted in every respect as we are because as God, the temptation would have meant nothing and Satan tempted him for no reason at all.

Sorry I have not been able to respond or catch up on your posts. Hopefully I will be able to do that over the weekend. However, I thought I would Just take a quick peek at the last page to see where things on this thread were and BINGO! I saw this last comment.

It reminds me of where I was as I was reading through, studying the New Testament on my own, without the aid of any "study guide". I came to the same initial conclusion you did here. If Jesus was God then he could not have been tempted, and the entire temptation account is a sham. Jesus must be man in order to be tempted. But as I continued to read the account I realized this same account is still a sham if Jesus is just a man. In fact, the account actually verifies Jesus' status as both God and man, which is exactly what the Trinitarian doctrine states. It makes sense no other way, and if this account doesn't make sense, then everything, the fall, the sacrifices, the atonements, the prophets....none of them make sense either, at least for for those who consider themselves Christians

So let's go back to the temptation so I can show you why I came back to the Trinity:

Matthew 4:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Why is Satan tempting Jesus...if Jesus is God?

Obviously, if Jesus is God, he can't be tempted. He can only be tempted if he's a man (well, angels can be tempted, but that's not a concern here).

Unitarians END their discussion there, when they should continue:

Why is Satan tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread, if Jesus is just a man?

Obviously, if Jesus is man, he can't be tempted to turn stones into bread. It's just not a thing we can do. Satan could tempt me to turn the gas and electric bill sitting on my kitchen table into US currency, but the temptation means nothing if I simply can't do it.

So who is Satan talking to? Is he talking to man or God?
Well, if you're an atheist or skeptic, then he's talking to neither. The whole account is a sham, and we've just proved it! And that would include all of the New Testament scriptures, because this is what I would consider a MAJOR event of the NT.

So how do we resolve this? Let's go back to the scripture and leave our preconceived ideas of what Christ is and cannot be behind. We're going to let scripture tell us exactly who Jesus is.

Turning Stones into Bread:

Satan is tempting the Son of man. We all know that, because that is what he is. In fact we all agree on that. However, at the time of my initial study, I already had in mind that Jesus was not God. This account helped resolve it for me.

After "fasting forty days and forty nights, hew was hungry". Does God get hungry? No! Verdict: Jesus is a man.

But then Satan asks Jesus a curious question:

If you are the Son of God...​

Obviously Satan realizes there is a difference here, "Son of Man" is NOT something that is equivalent to "Son of God". He is still talking to Jesus. He is not talking "through" Jesus to talk to the Father. His words are directed to Jesus, but he is asking Jesus to confirm if he really is the Son of God.

Command these stones to become loaves of bread.... ​

Wait a minute?! Can man turn stones into bread? No! Verdict: Jesus is not a man.

This produces a dilemma: Jesus cannot be man for the same reason he cannot be God.

Note Jesus does not ridicule Satan for thinking men can turn stones into bread. Apparently Satan is well aware of this. Also note that none of the early Christian readers of this account, and none of the apostles thought men could do so either. This is either something they ALL overlooked, or it was something they were ALL aware of.

So now, reading the text and noting the lack of a perplexed "What on earth are you talking about?" look on Jesus, and by reading the text alone, I began to see their was a distinction between the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God". The Son of Man cannot possibly turn loaves into bread. But the Son of God can, and that's why Satan asked his curious question...

If you are the Son of God. command these stones to become loaves of bread​

Again, Satan is asking the Son of Man, as Son of God, to COMMAND the stones to be loaves of bread. He cannot ask the Son of Man to do this, because as man this is not something he can do. He cannot ask Jesus to COMMAND the Father, because Jesus cannot COMMAND the Father. In fact, Jesus cannot ASK the Father to turn the stones into bread as a courtesy for his benefit, because the Father cannot be tempted or fooled, something both Jesus and Satan already know.

Let's continue with Satan's quote of scripture:

“‘ For it is written: Man shall not live by bread alone,....​

After fasting 40 days and nights, and becoming "hungry to the bone" we know this has a powerful appeal to Jesus, but only to Jesus the man.

but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’​

The COMMAND to turn stones into bread has to come from somebody's mouth, but it isn't coming out of the mouth of the Father. The only way it works, and the only way it makes any sense at all, is if the command comes from the mouth of God, which is exactly what Satan was hoping would happen, but only if he could tempt the Son of Man.

Jesus has a dual nature, which is just what the Trinity teaches. Under the Unitarian narrative, I am left with a man incapable of turning stones into bread and a scam of a temptation story. In short, once I realize I can 't resolve the test under the Unitarian model, I am well on the way to declaring the whole account nonsense, perhaps to the point of joining the skeptics on the forum.

I think once readers realize what Trinitarian doctrine means when it says Jesus has a dual nature, fully human and fully divine, other verses will quickly fall into place. I don't have time this week to go over all the posts and many comments, but I will get to a lot of them as soon as I can. In the meantime, it looks like the Trinitarians posting here, @Brian2 and/or @InChrist, are doing an excellent job explaining Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, if anyone is able to explain how the temptation account can be resolved under the Unitarian lens, I would be happy to hear it. The above account is based on my personal study and observation, and I realize not everyone will agree.

HTH with further discourse.

 

[Eli G]

If the Devil questioned that Jesus was the Son of God, why do Trinitarians insist that Jesus was God?

Matt. 4:6 and said to him: “If you are a son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written: ‘He will give his angels a command concerning you,’ and, ‘They will carry you on their hands, so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Would the Devil have made a proposal to God to give him "the kingdoms of the world" if he had knelt in front of him?

Matt. 4:8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”

Ridiculous, the juggling that some do to try to find something in the Bible that they can somehow use to defend their erroneous beliefs.

 

[Oeste]

Hi Eli,

If the Devil questioned that Jesus was the Son of God, why do Trinitarians insist that Jesus was God?

Because Trinitarians don’t believe the Devil. Scripture declares Jesus is the Son of God. So as Son of Man, he is in the “order of man”, and as Son of God, he is in “the order of God”.

Matt. 4:6 and said to him: “If you are a son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written: ‘He will give his angels a command concerning you,’ and, ‘They will carry you on their hands, so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Well, if he did that, Jesus would be testing God. Remember, Trinitarians believe Jesus is a man too, and not half man-half God, but fully man and fully God.

So anything that might appeal to a man will also appeal to Jesus. That is how Jesus is tempted.

Here, once again, Satan is trying to get Jesus to goad the Father into some form of action. So let’s look at this, because you expect answers from me but for some reason cannot return the courtesy unless it’s in the form of a non-answer or scoff.

So Jesus is up high. If Jesus falters, or gets scared, then how can he be the Son of God? The Son of Man keeps a meek and humble faith in God, so If he is the Son of God, why wouldn’t the Father save him? So, if he gets too scared to jump off, he has no faith, and if he does jump off, Jesus can have full confidence that God will save him. It’s very clever!

But there’s the rub. The meek and humble spirit is confident, but it isn’t presumptuous. Jesus answers Satan correctly with another scripture “Thou shalt not put God to the test”. He remained humble and did not answer Satan’s call to pride.

I don’t think my answer differs much from the Watchtower’s on this, but I could be wrong. The point is, you should remember that Trinitarians believe Jesus is a man, just like you do, so he can be tempted just like any other man. We also believe he is God, just like you don’t.

However, IMO, it is the realization of Jesus’s dual nature that allows Trinitarians to answer questions, rather than simply ask questions to avoid answers.

Would the Devil have made a proposal to God to give him "the kingdoms of the world" if he had knelt in front of him?

Matt. 4:8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”

No, because God cannot be tempted, which is why he made the proposal to Jesus as Son of Man.

Remember, Jesus at his incarnation emptied himself. I suspect that Jesus felt this emptiness every day, as it is the loss of his former glory and power.

Yes, he could reach out and grasp this power and do things his way, just as Satan tempts him to do. But that would be a shortcut, and not at all according to his Father’s plan.

Once Jesus grasped at his former glory he is no longer acting as a man, even if he grasps power for “good, but wrong reasons”. If that had happened, the messianic mission the Father sent him to complete would be over, and a new messianic mission, one based on power and pride, would begin.

I have serious doubts about Satan’s ability to deliver on his promises, but this does show Jesus had two messianic paths. The quick and easy one where he follows Satan and his own, or the long suffering one, where he follows the Father’s.

Ridiculous, the juggling that some do to try to find something in the Bible that they can somehow use to defend their erroneous beliefs.

I couldn’t agree with you more Eli, but this is a debate forum where everyone is able and even encouraged to express their views.

 

[InChrist]

Sorry I have not been able to respond or catch up on your posts. Hopefully I will be able to do that over the weekend. However, I thought I would Just take a quick peek at the last page to see where things on this thread were and BINGO! I saw this last comment.

It reminds me of where I was as I was reading through, studying the New Testament on my own, without the aid of any "study guide". I came to the same initial conclusion you did here. If Jesus was God then he could not have been tempted, and the entire temptation account is a sham. Jesus must be man in order to be tempted. But as I continued to read the account I realized this same account is still a sham if Jesus is just a man. In fact, the account actually verifies Jesus' status as both God and man, which is exactly what the Trinitarian doctrine states. It makes sense no other way, and if this account doesn't make sense, then everything, the fall, the sacrifices, the atonements, the prophets....none of them make sense either, at least for for those who consider themselves Christians

So let's go back to the temptation so I can show you why I came back to the Trinity:

Matthew 4:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Why is Satan tempting Jesus...if Jesus is God?

Obviously, if Jesus is God, he can't be tempted. He can only be tempted if he's a man (well, angels can be tempted, but that's not a concern here).

Unitarians END their discussion there, when they should continue:

Why is Satan tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread, if Jesus is just a man?

Obviously, if Jesus is man, he can't be tempted to turn stones into bread. It's just not a thing we can do. Satan could tempt me to turn the gas and electric bill sitting on my kitchen table into US currency, but the temptation means nothing if I simply can't do it.

So who is Satan talking to? Is he talking to man or God?
Well, if you're an atheist or skeptic, then he's talking to neither. The whole account is a sham, and we've just proved it! And that would include all of the New Testament scriptures, because this is what I would consider a MAJOR event of the NT.

So how do we resolve this? Let's go back to the scripture and leave our preconceived ideas of what Christ is and cannot be behind. We're going to let scripture tell us exactly who Jesus is.

Turning Stones into Bread:

Satan is tempting the Son of man. We all know that, because that is what he is. In fact we all agree on that. However, at the time of my initial study, I already had in mind that Jesus was not God. This account helped resolve it for me.

After "fasting forty days and forty nights, hew was hungry". Does God get hungry? No! Verdict: Jesus is a man.

But then Satan asks Jesus a curious question:

If you are the Son of God...​

Obviously Satan realizes there is a difference here, "Son of Man" is NOT something that is equivalent to "Son of God". He is still talking to Jesus. He is not talking "through" Jesus to talk to the Father. His words are directed to Jesus, but he is asking Jesus to confirm if he really is the Son of God.

Command these stones to become loaves of bread.... ​

Wait a minute?! Can man turn stones into bread? No! Verdict: Jesus is not a man.

This produces a dilemma: Jesus cannot be man for the same reason he cannot be God.

Note Jesus does not ridicule Satan for thinking men can turn stones into bread. Apparently Satan is well aware of this. Also note that none of the early Christian readers of this account, and none of the apostles thought men could do so either. This is either something they ALL overlooked, or it was something they were ALL aware of.

So now, reading the text and noting the lack of a perplexed "What on earth are you talking about?" look on Jesus, and by reading the text alone, I began to see their was a distinction between the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God". The Son of Man cannot possibly turn loaves into bread. But the Son of God can, and that's why Satan asked his curious question...

If you are the Son of God. command these stones to become loaves of bread​

Again, Satan is asking the Son of Man, as Son of God, to COMMAND the stones to be loaves of bread. He cannot ask the Son of Man to do this, because as man this is not something he can do. He cannot ask Jesus to COMMAND the Father, because Jesus cannot COMMAND the Father. In fact, Jesus cannot ASK the Father to turn the stones into bread as a courtesy for his benefit, because the Father cannot be tempted or fooled, something both Jesus and Satan already know.

Let's continue with Satan's quote of scripture:

“‘ For it is written: Man shall not live by bread alone,....​

After fasting 40 days and nights, and becoming "hungry to the bone" we know this has a powerful appeal to Jesus, but only to Jesus the man.

but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’​

The COMMAND to turn stones into bread has to come from somebody's mouth, but it isn't coming out of the mouth of the Father. The only way it works, and the only way it makes any sense at all, is if the command comes from the mouth of God, which is exactly what Satan was hoping would happen, but only if he could tempt the Son of Man.

Jesus has a dual nature, which is just what the Trinity teaches. Under the Unitarian narrative, I am left with a man incapable of turning stones into bread and a scam of a temptation story. In short, once I realize I can 't resolve the test under the Unitarian model, I am well on the way to declaring the whole account nonsense, perhaps to the point of joining the skeptics on the forum.

I think once readers realize what Trinitarian doctrine means when it says Jesus has a dual nature, fully human and fully divine, other verses will quickly fall into place. I don't have time this week to go over all the posts and many comments, but I will get to a lot of them as soon as I can. In the meantime, it looks like the Trinitarians posting here, @Brian2 and/or @InChrist, are doing an excellent job explaining Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, if anyone is able to explain how the temptation account can be resolved under the Unitarian lens, I would be happy to hear it. The above account is based on my personal study and observation, and I realize not everyone will agree.

HTH with further discourse.

Excellent insights into the scriptures and their revelation of the triune nature of God. For me, although I had read all those scriptures, it took a work of the Holy Spirit to open my understanding. Prior to trusting Jesus Christ as my Savior, I was adamantly against the Trinity and believed it to be a false doctrine. The moment I was saved and born again, all the scriptures were illuminated and I knew without a doubt Jesus was God; He could not be the Savior otherwise. I knew then the Trinity was true and revealed throughout the pages of the Bible.

 

[amazing grace]

Sorry I have not been able to respond or catch up on your posts. Hopefully I will be able to do that over the weekend. However, I thought I would Just take a quick peek at the last page to see where things on this thread were and BINGO! I saw this last comment.

It reminds me of where I was as I was reading through, studying the New Testament on my own, without the aid of any "study guide". I came to the same initial conclusion you did here. If Jesus was God then he could not have been tempted, and the entire temptation account is a sham. Jesus must be man in order to be tempted. But as I continued to read the account I realized this same account is still a sham if Jesus is just a man. In fact, the account actually verifies Jesus' status as both God and man, which is exactly what the Trinitarian doctrine states. It makes sense no other way, and if this account doesn't make sense, then everything, the fall, the sacrifices, the atonements, the prophets....none of them make sense either, at least for for those who consider themselves Christians

I left the Trinity doctrine because a man cannot be both God and man simultaneously.

So let's go back to the temptation so I can show you why I came back to the Trinity:

Matthew 4:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

Why is Satan tempting Jesus...if Jesus is God?

Obviously, if Jesus is God, he can't be tempted. He can only be tempted if he's a man (well, angels can be tempted, but that's not a concern here).

Unitarians END their discussion there, when they should continue:

Why is Satan tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread, if Jesus is just a man?

Obviously, if Jesus is man, he can't be tempted to turn stones into bread. It's just not a thing we can do. Satan could tempt me to turn the gas and electric bill sitting on my kitchen table into US currency, but the temptation means nothing if I simply can't do it.

So who is Satan talking to? Is he talking to man or God?
Well, if you're an atheist or skeptic, then he's talking to neither. The whole account is a sham, and we've just proved it! And that would include all of the New Testament scriptures, because this is what I would consider a MAJOR event of the NT.

So how do we resolve this? Let's go back to the scripture and leave our preconceived ideas of what Christ is and cannot be behind. We're going to let scripture tell us exactly who Jesus is.

Turning Stones into Bread:

Satan is tempting the Son of man. We all know that, because that is what he is. In fact we all agree on that. However, at the time of my initial study, I already had in mind that Jesus was not God. This account helped resolve it for me.

After "fasting forty days and forty nights, hew was hungry". Does God get hungry? No! Verdict: Jesus is a man.

But then Satan asks Jesus a curious question:

If you are the Son of God...​

Obviously Satan realizes there is a difference here, "Son of Man" is NOT something that is equivalent to "Son of God". He is still talking to Jesus. He is not talking "through" Jesus to talk to the Father. His words are directed to Jesus, but he is asking Jesus to confirm if he really is the Son of God.

Command these stones to become loaves of bread.... ​

Wait a minute?! Can man turn stones into bread? No! Verdict: Jesus is not a man.

This produces a dilemma: Jesus cannot be man for the same reason he cannot be God.

Note Jesus does not ridicule Satan for thinking men can turn stones into bread. Apparently Satan is well aware of this. Also note that none of the early Christian readers of this account, and none of the apostles thought men could do so either. This is either something they ALL overlooked, or it was something they were ALL aware of.

So now, reading the text and noting the lack of a perplexed "What on earth are you talking about?" look on Jesus, and by reading the text alone, I began to see their was a distinction between the terms "Son of Man" and "Son of God". The Son of Man cannot possibly turn loaves into bread. But the Son of God can, and that's why Satan asked his curious question...

If you are the Son of God. command these stones to become loaves of bread​

Again, Satan is asking the Son of Man, as Son of God, to COMMAND the stones to be loaves of bread. He cannot ask the Son of Man to do this, because as man this is not something he can do. He cannot ask Jesus to COMMAND the Father, because Jesus cannot COMMAND the Father. In fact, Jesus cannot ASK the Father to turn the stones into bread as a courtesy for his benefit, because the Father cannot be tempted or fooled, something both Jesus and Satan already know.

Let's continue with Satan's quote of scripture:

“‘ For it is written: Man shall not live by bread alone,....​

After fasting 40 days and nights, and becoming "hungry to the bone" we know this has a powerful appeal to Jesus, but only to Jesus the man.

but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’​

The COMMAND to turn stones into bread has to come from somebody's mouth, but it isn't coming out of the mouth of the Father. The only way it works, and the only way it makes any sense at all, is if the command comes from the mouth of God, which is exactly what Satan was hoping would happen, but only if he could tempt the Son of Man.

What is it to be tempted? tempt would be when somebody or something gives you a motive to do something wrong or it could be a test: a positive or neutral trial. Tempting in and of itself is not a sin because sin requires some sort of action or choice.
Who led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil?
Satan knew who Jesus was and of course, Jesus knew who he was - How is Satan using the term Son of God? I believe in a derogatory sense meant to mock or convey contempt - taunting Jesus.
Jesus is starving after fasting for forty days which is strong motivation to turn the stones to bread. Satan is saying "Tell these stones to turn into bread" since you are hungry and if you really are the Son of God - why not! Jesus replied with Deut. 3:8 which refers back to when the Israelites were humbled and tested to know what was in their heart and whether they would humble themselves and keep God's commandments. God fed them with manna to make them know that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, i.e. God was their sufficiency. (Satan wasn't addressing Jesus with the title "Son of Man" but with the title "Son of God")
And in the same sense God is testing Jesus - Why? to see if he is ready to begin his ministry. Jesus passed the test.

Jesus has a dual nature, which is just what the Trinity teaches. Under the Unitarian narrative, I am left with a man incapable of turning stones into bread and a scam of a temptation story. In short, once I realize I can 't resolve the test under the Unitarian model, I am well on the way to declaring the whole account nonsense, perhaps to the point of joining the skeptics on the forum.

I think once readers realize what Trinitarian doctrine means when it says Jesus has a dual nature, fully human and fully divine, other verses will quickly fall into place. I don't have time this week to go over all the posts and many comments, but I will get to a lot of them as soon as I can. In the meantime, it looks like the Trinitarians posting here, @Brian2 and/or @InChrist, are doing an excellent job explaining Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, if anyone is able to explain how the temptation account can be resolved under the Unitarian lens, I would be happy to hear it. The above account is based on my personal study and observation, and I realize not everyone will agree.

HTH with further discourse.

I understand that the Trinity teaches that Jesus has a dual nature, I disagree.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, I understand the Trinitarian concept of the Son of God. He was God and man - a "god-man" or God come to earth as a man - no such thing. I believe that Jesus Christ was fully man just Adam was and just as we are. Why did the Son of God have to be God?

I would have thought that the Father conceiving Jesus in Mary would give Jesus 2 natures, that of a human and that of God, even if we don't think that the Son of God was in heaven and sent down to become a man through conception.
The Catholic Church seems to have a dilemma about Jesus sin nature and ends up saying that Mary was a sinless woman and did not pass on a falled nature to Jesus.
You do it another way and say that Jesus Father was God and so Jesus did not have a fallen sin nature. But you forget about Mary and her human, sinful nature,,,,,,,,,,,, even if the angel does say God was pleased with her.
But really the truth imo has nothing to do with a sinful fallen nature in humans, but has to do with Jesus as the Son of God and the imprint of the nature/essence of God (Heb 1) was able to overcome the temptations that the human side of Jesus endured.
He was one person with 2 natures and left His glory and power behind for His task as a man on earth, but He did not leave who/what He is behind, He still was good, just like only God is good, and that is a proof text for who He is. Was He good as only God is, or did He sin? He was good, and that is why He was able to be the Lamb of God.

Yes, the Lamb of God had to be a real man who could have sinned but remained obedient unto death. The Trinitarian Christ is not a real man but a "god-man", God clothed in flesh come to earth. It's best to be honest with oneself.

That is your honest opinion of the Trinitarian Christ but He had 2 parents, so why not see Him a fleshly body with a human spirit that was also Divine?
That imo would be more accurate. Christians who have the Holy Spirit are being changed into His image and as humans we can attain to the fullness of Christ eventually if we follow the Spirit and learn from Jesus etc, but we will never be Divine as Jesus was from birth. He grew in wisdom and stature but never sinned, He knew God already and had His character even from birth.

Nothing is impossible for God BUT God will not become one of his created beings - not a rock, a tree, a bird, nor a man.
God cannot be tempted with evil therefore if Jesus was in any way God - the temptations were for nothing.

I really don't look at the incarnation as God being created as a man,,,, but I do see it as God stepping into His creation by taking on the form of a servant. Having a God and human nature also. As I said, the human nature gets tempted and the Divinity overcomes the temptation.
Why do you say the temptations were for nothing if Jesus human nature can be tempted? Is there another reason?

Yes, Jesus said only God was good. Jesus did what he did and taught what he taught because of God’s guidance, and he gave God the credit.

So you agree that only God is good and that Jesus was good but don't finish the logic, that therefore Jesus was God.
And yes Jesus being good gives His Father glory because it shows what He (the Father) is like.

Yes, Yahweh asked "To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal? says the Holy One." No one else is THE Holy One - Almighty God. No one else is His equal. Jesus Christ was not equal to God - remember Jesus says of himself that he can do nothing on his own (John 5:19, 30; 7:16; 8:28; 12:49, 50) - Jesus Christ came to declare or make known, i.e. to show us God.
Jesus Christ reflected God's glory - "the brightness of God's glory" - God's glory is reflected through His Son.

Heb 1 does not actually say that Jesus reflected God's glory. It says that He is the radiance of the glory of God. The glory is His, Jesus', and comes from Him.
The Son can and does do all that the Father does.
John 5:18 Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does.
The actually shows that the Son is equal with God in what He can do but it shows the relationship between the Father and Son. It shows the love of the Father for His Son and shows the submission of the Son to His Father, who, although equal in nature and power, does not grasp at these things or at the authority of the Father but submits to all that the Father wants, and that glorifies the Father and then the Father glorifies His Son with the inheritance that belongs to Him (John 16:15) the full power AND authority and rule over the Kingdom, which He rules forever.
He, the God man eventually submits to the Father again and gives the Kingdom back so that God will be all in all, but the Son rules the Kingdom forever as I think I have shown you from scriptures. And interestingly those scriptures say that YHWH alone will be King. (Zech 14:9)
Zech 14:9 On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth— the LORD alone, and His name alone.
Ezek 37:23,,,,,,,,,,, Then they will be My people, and I will be their God. 24My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes.

It gets confusing as to who will be doing what but to me it looks like the Son, who is David and inherits the name above all names, will be King, because the fullness of deity dwells in Him after all.

As for John 17:5 Jesus was praying that the glory the Old Testament foretold he would have would come into concretion, i.e. come into manifestation. We can tell that Jesus was speaking of being in God’s foreknowledge from the immediate context. Just two verses earlier, in John 17:3, Jesus said that the Father was “the only true God.” Jesus could not have prayed that while at the same time thinking he was God too. Furthermore, Jesus spoke again about things in God’s foreknowledge in John 17:22 when he said that he had given the glory from God to his disciples. But that had not happened yet either.

The Father is the only true God and the Son is in and comes from His Father and has the same nature as His Father as His begotten Son and not a created Son.
In John 17:22 Jesus is just saying that He has told them all things so that they can be completely one as the Son and Father are one.
And I must have given you many scriptures about the fact of Jesus having a pre existence in heaven with His Father. If you choose to twist them to mean other than what they plainly tell us, that is your problem.
But you have good reason to have that confirmation bias. And no, I am not the one with the confirmation bias who wants to deny the plain meaning. (ie, the scripture says Jesus came from heaven and you say, not it doesn't, )
When you are on the wrong track that is just something you need to do, deny plain meanings and twist them into something else.

I understand that God cannot be tempted with evil - Just because Jesus did not fall for the temptation does not mean he was God and I would think Satan tempting Jesus to worship him would be evil - so if Jesus was God in any form or fashion - he would not have been tempted in every respect as we are because as God, the temptation would have meant nothing and Satan tempted him for no reason at all.

But Jesus has 2 natures and it is the human nature (as @Oeste puts it, the Son of Man) that would be tempted, but is the Divine nature (Son of God) that is able to see through the temptations and overcome them. So the Son of Man did not sin.

 

[Brian2]

And in the same sense God is testing Jesus - Why? to see if he is ready to begin his ministry. Jesus passed the test.

God already knows Jesus is ready. It was not God testing His Son.
If the Son did sin there would be no Lamb of God.
The Son does not need to pass any tests to be good enough, the Son just is good enough to overcome temptation because of His Divine nature.

I understand that the Trinity teaches that Jesus has a dual nature, I disagree.

Why do you disagree?

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Do you think that a mere man has the exact imprint of God's nature?
And you already know Jesus has a human nature.
2 natures.
But I suppose you think Adam's nature was the exact imprint of God's nature.

 

[amazing grace]

I would have thought that the Father conceiving Jesus in Mary would give Jesus 2 natures, that of a human and that of God, even if we don't think that the Son of God was in heaven and sent down to become a man through conception.

How?

The Catholic Church seems to have a dilemma about Jesus sin nature and ends up saying that Mary was a sinless woman and did not pass on a falled nature to Jesus.
You do it another way and say that Jesus Father was God and so Jesus did not have a fallen sin nature. But you forget about Mary and her human, sinful nature,,,,,,,,,,,, even if the angel does say God was pleased with her.
But really the truth imo has nothing to do with a sinful fallen nature in humans, but has to do with Jesus as the Son of God and the imprint of the nature/essence of God (Heb 1) was able to overcome the temptations that the human side of Jesus endured.
He was one person with 2 natures and left His glory and power behind for His task as a man on earth, but He did not leave who/what He is behind, He still was good, just like only God is good, and that is a proof text for who He is. Was He good as only God is, or did He sin? He was good, and that is why He was able to be the Lamb of God.

The "sin nature"; sin came into the world through one man - therefore since Jesus wasn't conceived by a man - he did not inherit the sin nature.
An "imprint" is NOT the same as the original. An "exact representation" is NOT the same as the original.
So, Jesus as God was able to overcome the temptations that Jesus the man endured?

That is your honest opinion of the Trinitarian Christ but He had 2 parents, so why not see Him a fleshly body with a human spirit that was also Divine?
That imo would be more accurate. Christians who have the Holy Spirit are being changed into His image and as humans we can attain to the fullness of Christ eventually if we follow the Spirit and learn from Jesus etc, but we will never be Divine as Jesus was from birth. He grew in wisdom and stature but never sinned, He knew God already and had His character even from birth.

So, Jesus the man grew in wisdom (and stature) but Jesus as God had ALL wisdom. . .?
I do see him with a fleshly body with a human spirit. Every human has a human spirit - For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2:11)
I do see him as divine in that he came directly from God, i.e. God sent him, God gave him, he came from God but not in the sense that he was God.
And Jesus knew all things concerning God from his birth? Or maybe, just maybe he read and studied the OT scripture and prophecies concerning himself and God and that is how he "grew in wisdom"?

I really don't look at the incarnation as God being created as a man,,,, but I do see it as God stepping into His creation by taking on the form of a servant. Having a God and human nature also. As I said, the human nature gets tempted and the Divinity overcomes the temptation.
Why do you say the temptations were for nothing if Jesus human nature can be tempted? Is there another reason?

What is the incarnation if not God becoming man - one of His created beings?
Jesus was only tempted in his flesh but God overcame the temptation? How bout Jesus was tempted in all things as we are but Jesus overcame these temptations being an example to us on how to walk in obedience and trust in God?
Jesus was tempted but since he was God overcame the temptation but yet God cannot be tempted . . . . ??????

So you agree that only God is good and that Jesus was good but don't finish the logic, that therefore Jesus was God.
And yes Jesus being good gives His Father glory because it shows what He (the Father) is like.

I agree with what Jesus said - I believe Jesus was good because he always did the will of God; he spoke what God told him to speak, he did the works God gave him to do - Jesus showed us through his words and actions who God is thus reflecting God's goodness.

Heb 1 does not actually say that Jesus reflected God's glory. It says that He is the radiance of the glory of God. The glory is His, Jesus', and comes from Him.
The Son can and does do all that the Father does.

He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of his nature . . . ESV; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, (KJV) (apaugasma - the reflected brightness -- of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the majesty of God)

John 5:18 Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does.
The actually shows that the Son is equal with God in what He can do but it shows the relationship between the Father and Son. It shows the love of the Father for His Son and shows the submission of the Son to His Father, who, although equal in nature and power, does not grasp at these things or at the authority of the Father but submits to all that the Father wants, and that glorifies the Father and then the Father glorifies His Son with the inheritance that belongs to Him (John 16:15) the full power AND authority and rule over the Kingdom, which He rules forever.

John 5:19 shows that the Son is equal with God yet the Son can do nothing of himself????
Jesus only does what he perceives God his Father would do. For God his Father shows him all that He Himself is doing. It's the concept of "like Father, like Son".
If Jesus has equality with God, i.e. Jesus is God - what does it look like submitting to oneself?
I know you don't see the Son as the Father but if you believe Jesus is God then Jesus, by all reasoning has to be the Father for the Father is the ONLY TRUE God.

He, the God man eventually submits to the Father again and gives the Kingdom back so that God will be all in all, but the Son rules the Kingdom forever as I think I have shown you from scriptures. And interestingly those scriptures say that YHWH alone will be King. (Zech 14:9)
Zech 14:9 On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth— the LORD alone, and His name alone.
Ezek 37:23,,,,,,,,,,, Then they will be My people, and I will be their God. 24My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes.

It gets confusing as to who will be doing what but to me it looks like the Son, who is David and inherits the name above all names, will be King, because the fullness of deity dwells in Him after all.

So, we have God again submitting to God and giving the kingdom back to God so that God will be all in all.
Yes, "ON THAT DAY Yahweh will become King over all the earth---Yahweh alone and His name alone" - when Jesus delivers the kingdom to God and is again in subjection to God then God will be all in all.
Ezekiel 37:24 is a Messianic prophecy concerning the Messiah - the Messiah is referenced as “David” to highlight that the Messiah would be a lineal descendant of David, which he was through Mary. David is not the one shepherd for all of them. (John 10:7-16)

The Father is the only true God and the Son is in and comes from His Father and has the same nature as His Father as His begotten Son and not a created Son.
And I must have given you many

If the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD then Jesus cannot also be "God" because logically that would make him the Father which you say he is not.

But Jesus has 2 natures and it is the human nature (as @Oeste puts it, the Son of Man) that would be tempted, but is the Divine nature (Son of God) that is able to see through the temptations and overcome them. So the Son of Man did not sin.

I believe Jesus was addressed with his title "Son of God" when he faced Satan and the Jesus the Son of God overcame those temptations. (Satan did not address Jesus with his title "Son of Man") and if God overcame those temptations then Jesus didn't overcome anything . . . . God did!
Where is the logic in anything in anything put forth here?

 

[amazing grace]

God already knows Jesus is ready. It was not God testing His Son.
If the Son did sin there would be no Lamb of God.
The Son does not need to pass any tests to be good enough, the Son just is good enough to overcome temptation because of His Divine nature.

Why do you disagree?

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Do you think that a mere man has the exact imprint of God's nature?
And you already know Jesus has a human nature.
2 natures.
But I suppose you think Adam's nature was the exact imprint of God's nature.

Why did God lead him into the desert to be tempted/tested by Satan then? If God knew already that He (God) would overcome the temptations/testing then why put Jesus through it at all? What was the point? That God can be victorious over Satan? Surely that is something we already know and how would God being victorious over sinning be any example for us - God cannot sin, there isn't even any possibility for God to sin!

Again, an imprint is not the original - an imprint is a copy.

Jesus was "made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people" and we are not "part God, part human" nor "fully God and fully man." Also God is infinite and man is finite, so Jesus would have to be a finite-infinite being - Impossible!

Adam was made in the image of God - Adam and Eve were perfect until they made the CHOICE to listen and believe the lies of the devil - "You shall not surely die . . . you will be like God knowing good and evil" . . . they grasped at equality with God.

 

[Soapy]

The Father is the only true God

If you fully understand and fully believe that the Father is the only true God, why do you believe that God is a trinity of persons?

Isn’t that recursive: The Father is “the Father (the only true God), the Son, and His own Spirit”

 

[Brian2]

If you fully understand and fully believe that the Father is the only true God, why do you believe that God is a trinity of persons?

Isn’t that recursive: The Father is “the Father (the only true God), the Son, and His own Spirit”

You seem to be misrepresenting again what you have been told a thousand times.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father and is one thing with the Father.
The Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son and comes (or as the theologians say) proceeds from both of them.

 

[Soapy]

You seem to be misrepresenting again what you have been told a thousand times.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father and is one thing with the Father.
The Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son and comes (or as the theologians say) proceeds from both of them.

I think you are confused. I did not say that the Father is the Son nor anything like that.

It is you that is saying that by the definitions that you give:

• The Father is the only true God
• But Jesus is God (and since there is only one true God then Jesus must also be that one true God)
• So the Father is the Son (by your definition)

But, of course, when the diabolical claims you make are pointed out to you, you realise what you’ve been saying and immediately go on the attack against the one who pointed out your error - Classic trinitarianism that i’ve seen over and over for years upon years!

It is this exact behaviour that keeps trinity going for over 2000 years.

Every time someone points out the absurdity of the trinity ideology it gives the Trinitarians the opportunity to modify, to adjust, to morph, like an insane virus, a different way of expressing a false ideology.

If trinity ideology were a true theology then there would be no change, modification, nor morphing of the belief.

And I notice that Trinitarians more often seem to claim that Jesus was a ‘mere’ man. No, absolutely not so. A man born sinless by the spirit of God is not a ‘mere’ man.

Jesus was ‘a man endowed with the spirit of God’, which was carried out at his anointing at the river Jordan. That is when GOD (the Father - the one true God you say and I say and scriptures say) claimed him as his ‘SON’:

• ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased’

God told this to the prophet John the Baptist beforehand:

• ‘The one on whom you see the spirit come down on and remain on, him I will anoint with holy oil’ (holy oil is the most sacred fluid greater than that which the priests used to anoint a proposed king or another priest to-be…. Jesus was anointed to be BOTH king and Priest: “God made this Jesus to be both Lord and Christ”)

Jesus did not perform miracles BY HIS OWN POWER… (a mere man?!!!). Prior to carrying out any miracle Jesus FIRST PRAYED TO THE FATHER for use of the Spirit. It was granted to him to use it and thence the miracle occurred.
Take note that many other of God’s people carried out miracles in the past… We have Elijah and Elisha both raising up a dead child, we have Moses carrying out many miracles in the presence of the Egyptians, …. you know the score… All of these people GOD WORKED THROUGH… and the same He did with Jesus, hence Jesus says:

• ‘These things you see me do are because of the Father working through me’

You should also notice that the disciples and later the Apostles also carried out great works and miracles. Does that mean that they too were ‘GOD’, of was it that the POWER OF GOD was working through them ‘DOING THE WORKS’?… oh, and how did they get to channel that power? Goodness, it says it right there in the scriptures: ‘Await in Jerusalem until you receive POWER FROM ON HIGH’ - and this indeed occurred at Pentecost, which is… The Spirit of God came down on them like lightening, tongues of fire and thunder!! And they each received GIFTS (powers, according to their capacities: Some a little, some a lot… jesus received ALL THE GIFTS because unlike the apostles, he was sinless)

 

[Brian2]

How?

Through conception and not through creation. The life of Jesus came directly from God.

The "sin nature"; sin came into the world through one man - therefore since Jesus wasn't conceived by a man - he did not inherit the sin nature.

He did not inherit any man nature from God but inherited the God nature.
BUT if Jesus did not have a sin nature (whatever that is) and if not having this sin nature means that Jesus was able to conquer temptation, then it did make it easier for Jesus to conquer temptation.

An "imprint" is NOT the same as the original. An "exact representation" is NOT the same as the original.
So, Jesus as God was able to overcome the temptations that Jesus the man endured?

And we can see that Jesus had a copy of the God nature from His Father. And yes a son has the representation of the nature of his father, the son is not the father. But Jesus the Son of God had the perfect representation of the nature of His Father.
So yes, Jesus with this nature was able to overcome temptation.
Interestingly I see Jesus in a similar way to how I see a believer in Jesus, who is in the New Covenant and has the Holy Spirit.
This believer has a spirit that is born again through spiritual joining with the Spirit of Christ and has to learn and have his carnal mind changed/perfected and at the resurrection his whole body is perfected.
Jesus was born with that perfect spirit in union with the Father and His carnal mind was taught by His Father as He grew up and at His resurrection His carnal body was transformed/perfected.
So with Jesus He started off perfect in mind and grew up able to hear and follow the Spirit of God in Him and overcome temptation, which He was able to experience because of His carnal body and human nature.

So, Jesus the man grew in wisdom (and stature) but Jesus as God had ALL wisdom. . .?

Jesus the baby who had left His Godly attributes in heaven for later, would have had to learn about His human life and carpentry and moral wisdom from the Spirit in Him.

I do see him as divine in that he came directly from God, i.e. God sent him, God gave him, he came from God but not in the sense that he was God.
And Jesus knew all things concerning God from his birth? Or maybe, just maybe he read and studied the OT scripture and prophecies concerning himself and God and that is how he "grew in wisdom"?

Well He came from God and from heaven according to the scriptures, so He was the Lord from heaven. (Something Elizabeth recognised-Luke 1:43, and Malachi also-Mal 3:1, and as the angels told the shepherds-Luke 2:12) But He was the Son with the same Divine nature that His Father has but not the Father, the only God.
I don't see angels as Divine nor from God, and I only see someone, something from God as Divine. Is that the case with you or do you have another definition?

What is the incarnation if not God becoming man - one of His created beings?

I see the incarnation as the life of the Son/Word coming from God in heaven, when He lived and being placed in the body that God had prepared for Him in Mary.
The body is made from created matter and so in that way He stepped into creation but the spirit of Jesus I see as being the life that lived with and in God. Yet His spirit was joined to His flesh just the same as our's is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, iow He was a man, a Divine man because of His spirit from God and He had the nature of His Father and took on Himself the nature of a servant also by becoming a man, and learned obedience to the death and was perfected through suffering so that now He has His glorified body.

Jesus was only tempted in his flesh but God overcame the temptation? How bout Jesus was tempted in all things as we are but Jesus overcame these temptations being an example to us on how to walk in obedience and trust in God?
Jesus was tempted but since he was God overcame the temptation but yet God cannot be tempted . . . . ??????

What you saw sounds right to me. You probably say it better than I did.
Jesus overcame temptation and is an example to us, but He overcame temptation because of His nature from His Father.
His Father is the only God who lives in Jesus but it was Jesus the man who overcame the temptation, not His Father who lives in Him.
If we manage to overcome temptation it is us who do it even though God lives in us. But we don't always overcome temptation because we have not that Divine nature, we have a flawed nature that has to learn obedience, starting from a much lower level and from a state of being wounded.
Our High Priest understands us and understand where He came from and why He was able to overcome sin.

I agree with what Jesus said - I believe Jesus was good because he always did the will of God; he spoke what God told him to speak, he did the works God gave him to do - Jesus showed us through his words and actions who God is thus reflecting God's goodness.

True, but if Jesus was good through His own human will power then the glory is all His. If Jesus is truly reflecting the goodness of God then Jesus is, as scripture tells us, the Son of God with the nature of God (reproduced or not does not matter). That reflects on His Father and glory goes to the Father also. Only God is good tells us that the Son is one thing (God) along with His Father imo.

He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of his nature . . . ESV; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, (KJV) (apaugasma - the reflected brightness -- of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the majesty of God)

OK but not as a mirror, the radiance comes from the Son, it is the Son who reflects the radiance of His Father by having the same radiance.

John 5:19 shows that the Son is equal with God yet the Son can do nothing of himself????
Jesus only does what he perceives God his Father would do. For God his Father shows him all that He Himself is doing. It's the concept of "like Father, like Son".
If Jesus has equality with God, i.e. Jesus is God - what does it look like submitting to oneself?
I know you don't see the Son as the Father but if you believe Jesus is God then Jesus, by all reasoning has to be the Father for the Father is the ONLY TRUE God.

The Son does not have to be the Father is the Son is one thing with the Father.
Submitting to your Father, as His equal is a matter of serving ones equal.
The Father and Son know the truth, which one is the Father and which is the Son and the Son is the one who submits to His Father and the Father is the one who is the source of His Son, so within the Godhead there is relationship and order and the Son, being exactly like His Father, does not decide to be another God next to His Father.
They are distinct individuals but never separate really and the Son listens to His Father in all things, and if He did not do that then He would be presumptuous and usurping the authority of His Father.

So, we have God again submitting to God and giving the kingdom back to God so that God will be all in all.
Yes, "ON THAT DAY Yahweh will become King over all the earth---Yahweh alone and His name alone" - when Jesus delivers the kingdom to God and is again in subjection to God then God will be all in all.
Ezekiel 37:24 is a Messianic prophecy concerning the Messiah - the Messiah is referenced as “David” to highlight that the Messiah would be a lineal descendant of David, which he was through Mary. David is not the one shepherd for all of them. (John 10:7-16)

Jesus is the good shepherd, the LORD is my shepherd.
I see David as the King and shepherd over His people and I also see YHWH as the only King.
I also see Jesus as the firstborn of God, higher than the kings of the earth (Ps 89:27)
I see Him as the ruler of the creation of God (Rev 3:14)

If the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD then Jesus cannot also be "God" because logically that would make him the Father which you say he is not.

Jesus is saying that there is only one true God and even if the Son is in this God and is one thing with this God, that does not make the Son into the Father. It just means that within the one true God there are persons who have relationship with each other.
The source, the Father is called the one true God, but the one who is exactly like Him in nature and power and glory, is YHWH since there is none like YHWH and to whom can He be compared.

I believe Jesus was addressed with his title "Son of God" when he faced Satan and the Jesus the Son of God overcame those temptations. (Satan did not address Jesus with his title "Son of Man") and if God overcame those temptations then Jesus didn't overcome anything . . . . God did!
Where is the logic in anything in anything put forth here?

Satan seems to have been appealing to pride in Jesus.
But as Jesus said:
John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me. 31 But I do exactly what the Father has commanded Me, so that the world may know that I love the Father.
If Jesus had submitted to the temptation of Satan, then Satan would have a claim on Jesus just as he had on Adam and all of us, because we all sin.

 

[Brian2]

Why did God lead him into the desert to be tempted/tested by Satan then? If God knew already that He (God) would overcome the temptations/testing then why put Jesus through it at all? What was the point? That God can be victorious over Satan? Surely that is something we already know and how would God being victorious over sinning be any example for us - God cannot sin, there isn't even any possibility for God to sin!

There was no doubt in God's mind that Jesus would be able to overcome the temptation.
The prophecies were already in place.
It could have been to strengthen Jesus, so that He would never be tempted to doubt who He was or what He could do, even in His state of total weakness and vulnerability.

Again, an imprint is not the original - an imprint is a copy.

A son is a copy. The Father copies Himself in timelessness and they spend the rest of timelessness confused with each other and loving and knowing each other with the Spirit.

Jesus was "made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people" and we are not "part God, part human" nor "fully God and fully man." Also God is infinite and man is finite, so Jesus would have to be a finite-infinite being - Impossible!

Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Yes He was a flesh and blood human being as we all are. That is what is being said. But as you know He had a nature which was identical with the nature of God also. So you can't deny that in your beliefs He was different. And in your beliefs He had no sin nature, (which sort of means that He was not a human like the rest of us).
BUT in the above passage I see the pre existence of Jesus where it says that He partook of the same things. It sounds like He chose that as imo Phil 2 tells us.
When I was having trouble with JW doctrine and who Jesus was I used to see the distinctness of Jesus and God in scripture and not the oneness. That was a big thing that made me think that Jesus was not God in any way. We see what we want to see and we see what we have been taught is there. It's interesting the way our mind works both for and against us at times.
I ended up learning to see the oneness also. They are both there.

Adam was made in the image of God - Adam and Eve were perfect until they made the CHOICE to listen and believe the lies of the devil - "You shall not surely die . . . you will be like God knowing good and evil" . . . they grasped at equality with God.

I don't think that this image of God means that Adam had the nature of God.
It is hard to know their motivation for sure. Eve was tricked and Adam was not tricked but just ate when Eve gave Him the fruit.
But anyway, the prehuman Jesus did not cling to the equality He already had and He did not want to grasp equality and start going against what His Father wanted. I see it in Phil 2 as working both ways.

 

[Brian2]

I think you are confused. I did not say that the Father is the Son nor anything like that.

It is you that is saying that by the definitions that you give:

• The Father is the only true God
• But Jesus is God (and since there is only one true God then Jesus must also be that one true God)
• So the Father is the Son (by your definition)

But, of course, when the diabolical claims you make are pointed out to you, you realise what you’ve been saying and immediately go on the attack against the one who pointed out your error - Classic trinitarianism that i’ve seen over and over for years upon years!

It is this exact behaviour that keeps trinity going for over 2000 years.

Every time someone points out the absurdity of the trinity ideology it gives the Trinitarians the opportunity to modify, to adjust, to morph, like an insane virus, a different way of expressing a false ideology.

If trinity ideology were a true theology then there would be no change, modification, nor morphing of the belief.

I am not morphing anything, I just try to explain it and that, it seems is morphing it. I guess that means that your view of what trinitarianism is, is set and will never change even when you are told that you are wrong.
However I can understand your logic,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it actually works the way you put it, but the way you put it is not correct.

And I notice that Trinitarians more often seem to claim that Jesus was a ‘mere’ man. No, absolutely not so. A man born sinless by the spirit of God is not a ‘mere’ man.

Jesus was ‘a man endowed with the spirit of God’, which was carried out at his anointing at the river Jordan. That is when GOD (the Father - the one true God you say and I say and scriptures say) claimed him as his ‘SON’:

• ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased’

God told this to the prophet John the Baptist beforehand:

• ‘The one on whom you see the spirit come down on and remain on, him I will anoint with holy oil’ (holy oil is the most sacred fluid greater than that which the priests used to anoint a proposed king or another priest to-be…. Jesus was anointed to be BOTH king and Priest: “God made this Jesus to be both Lord and Christ”)

You seem to be misquoting what God told John the Baptist.
And as I have shown you from the scriptures, Jesus was both Lord and Christ at His birth. (Luke 2:11) and what you quote ((“God made this Jesus to be both Lord and Christ”)) means that God declared Jesus to be Lord and Christ by raising Him from the dead. That was the proof that what Jesus had been teaching was true.

Jesus did not perform miracles BY HIS OWN POWER… (a mere man?!!!). Prior to carrying out any miracle Jesus FIRST PRAYED TO THE FATHER for use of the Spirit. It was granted to him to use it and thence the miracle occurred.
Take note that many other of God’s people carried out miracles in the past… We have Elijah and Elisha both raising up a dead child, we have Moses carrying out many miracles in the presence of the Egyptians, …. you know the score… All of these people GOD WORKED THROUGH… and the same He did with Jesus, hence Jesus says:

• ‘These things you see me do are because of the Father working through me’

Yes I know Jesus did not do the miracles through His own power. sigh.