Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
Is Jesus God? I believed he was before I ever read my bible or heard any doctrine on the matter. Because of the inner experience I associated with his name. I think the new birth experience where “The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Romans 8:16) clears up the matter for many. From that point on, it doesn't take too much study to know the rest.
I wonder how many know they are born again experientially instead of theoretically?
-
@Dave_L said:
Is Jesus God? I believed he was before I ever read my bible or heard any doctrine on the matter. Because of the inner experience I associated with his name. I think the new birth experience where “The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Romans 8:16) clears up the matter for many. From that point on, it doesn't take too much study to know the rest.I wonder how many know they are born again experientially instead of theoretically?
How do you think you know that you are "born again" ?
Do you even know what the term "born again" as used in Biblical Scriptures means and to what it actually refers when the term is read in context?? Perhaps you can enlighten those of us here about whom you wonder ??
From previous posts regarding various subjects in which you mention the term, it appears that you think humans have nothing at all to do with it ... so why even wonder about others whether or not God has done something to or with them?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Is Jesus God? I believed he was before I ever read my bible or heard any doctrine on the matter. Because of the inner experience I associated with his name. I think the new birth experience where “The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Romans 8:16) clears up the matter for many. From that point on, it doesn't take too much study to know the rest.I wonder how many know they are born again experientially instead of theoretically?
How do you think you know that you are "born again" ?
Do you even know what the term "born again" as used in Biblical Scriptures means and to what it actually refers when the term is read in context?? Perhaps you can enlighten those of us here about whom you wonder ??
From previous posts regarding various subjects in which you mention the term, it appears that you think humans have nothing at all to do with it ... so why even wonder about others whether or not God has done something to or with them?
When born again you immediately experience the fruit of the Holy Spirit. In my case, after the event, I noticed a huge difference between looking for happiness in life to having joy and happiness, and the relief of no longer looking for it. This followed by an entirely new lifestyle and purpose. I've talked to others who share a similar experience.
-
@Dave_L said:
I wonder how many know they are born again experientially instead of theoretically?Good point. Just like Jesus says, "My Sheep hear my voice." Some do, some don't.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
How do you think you know that you are "born again" ?Do you even know what the term "born again" as used in Biblical Scriptures means and to what it actually refers when the term is read in context?? Perhaps you can enlighten those of us here about whom you wonder ??
From previous posts regarding various subjects in which you mention the term, it appears that you think humans have nothing at all to do with it ... so why even wonder about others whether or not God has done something to or with them?When born again you immediately experience the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
This is not what Scripture teaches regarding "born again" or "fruit of the spirit" ... but then, for some folks Scripture is more or less irrelevant and what they think they experience has replaced Scripture as the measure for truth.
In my case, after the event, I noticed a huge difference between looking for happiness in life to having joy and happiness, and the relief of no longer looking for it. This followed by an entirely new lifestyle and purpose. I've talked to others who share a similar experience.
My father had quite a life changing experience from bad to good ... after a visit to a doctor who told him a few things about his smoking habit.
Similar to what you describe as realizing I have experienced many times over more than four decades in different aspects when I had an "ah ha" experience and understood something which I had not understood before. How many times should I consider myself to have been born again, if I take your "experience measure" to determine? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
How do you think you know that you are "born again" ?Do you even know what the term "born again" as used in Biblical Scriptures means and to what it actually refers when the term is read in context?? Perhaps you can enlighten those of us here about whom you wonder ??
From previous posts regarding various subjects in which you mention the term, it appears that you think humans have nothing at all to do with it ... so why even wonder about others whether or not God has done something to or with them?When born again you immediately experience the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
This is not what Scripture teaches regarding "born again" or "fruit of the spirit" ... but then, for some folks Scripture is more or less irrelevant and what they think they experience has replaced Scripture as the measure for truth.
In my case, after the event, I noticed a huge difference between looking for happiness in life to having joy and happiness, and the relief of no longer looking for it. This followed by an entirely new lifestyle and purpose. I've talked to others who share a similar experience.
My father had quite a life changing experience from bad to good ... after a visit to a doctor who told him a few things about his smoking habit.
Similar to what you describe as realizing I have experienced many times over more than four decades in different aspects when I had an "ah ha" experience and understood something which I had not understood before. How many times should I consider myself to have been born again, if I take your "experience measure" to determine?Again, many people know what I'm talking about. I've heard some give a time and date for when they experienced the new birth. I can too. But I didn't pay attention to the date at that time. But it was a supernatural life changing event I look back on when I was 20 yrs old.
-
@GaoLu said:
For me personally, this invalidates your arguments as mentioned above and contradicts your statement that the Bible is the inspired word of God.You are free and welcome to offer comments all you wish of course. Just know that for me the characterization stands and arguments from such a source must be viewed in light of the source.
At issue here, Gao Lu, is NOT whether you "personally" believe one part of my arguments invalidates and/or contradicts some other part of my arguments. At issue is whether your previously posted characterization of my view of the Bible was, as I claimed, "knowingly incomplete and misleading."
In my view, whether my characterization of one of your points of view is complete and not misleading is a matter of objectivity, not personal opinion. Does my characterization fairly and accurately report your point of view?... a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from do I AGREE with your point of view? or do I believe your any of your points of view contradict each other?
Imagine the following exchange of posts between us:
- ME: Gao Lu believes everyone who doesn't believe exactly as he believes is going to Hell.
- YOU: That's not what I believe!
- ME: You're welcome to continue to believe anything you want to believe, Gao Lu, but for me personally, the characterization stands.
I bet you'd tell me that my opinions about your beliefs are one thing, but my reports summarizing your beliefs are another, that I should accurately state your beliefs, regardless of whether I agree with them. And in my view, you'd be right to respond that way.
I believe that before reporting your challenges to or protests of my beliefs, you should state them fairly and accurately. I still contend that in your earlier post, you knowingly didn't do that.
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
"Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth...."
I hope this is not true. This will cause one to be without a knowledge of God, faith, a guide to live by, without hope for the afterlife, death or the resurrection. How would one know the origin of life, the world, Jesus-the Christ, the way of salvation, God's dealing with humanity, deliverance from Satan and sin and the promises of the return of Christ? What a sad and hopeless person?
Perhaps, a thread needs to be started to review, again, the Inspiration of the Bible, its promises, hope abd God (whom so many don't know or deny his existence). It would be quite fruitless to engage in meaningful conversations when the parties don't agree among themselves, the basic and ultimate principles of authority. Without such, it would just be the regurgitation of religious verbiage. I hope it's not true; say it ain't so, GaoLu? CM
"Say it ain't so, GaoLu"??? You DO realize that I'm reading this thread too, don't you, C.M.? I AM the subject of your concern, the one whose point of view on the Bible, you claim, renders me "without a knowledge of God, faith, a guide to live by, without hope for the afterlife, death or the resurrection," and is therefore what you called "a sad and hopeless person." I hope you'll share with us why you decided to express your concern for my state to Gao Lu rather than to me. (And I hope you'll review the summary of my view of the Bible that I posted, and then address the question of whether Gao Lu's summary of it - which seems to have prompted your alarm - is fair and accurate.)
@GaoLu said:
... If you do not believe the truth of the inspired word of God, the Truth of the Bible then I would not expect you to offer meaningful dialog concerning its truths.@C_M_ said:
A wise man once said, what one says, it doesn't mean he believes it. If he says it long enough, he may one day.However, what one does; he believes, even if he doesn't know why.
On the other hand, what one thinks, is not what one says or do.
What one thinks, he says, and do repeatedly; he believes. What say ye? CM
You DO realize that I'm reading this thread too, don't you, C.M.?... Never mind. I already said that.
-
At the root of salvation is the doctrine of Imputation. And the difference between having a purely human Jesus, as another Adam and a divine Jesus as another Adam is found in the results of Imputation.
A purely human Jesus could restore us only to where Adam was before he sinned. A temporal being with finite righteousness. But since Jesus is God, he restores us not only to a pre-fall state of righteousness, but to an eternal state of Infinite Righteousness that only God can have.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
At issue here, Gao Lu, is NOT whether you "personally" believe one part of my arguments invalidates and/or contradicts some other part of my arguments.
Exactly. At issue for me was a reminder to us all where you stand as you make your perpetually critical arguments. That was all. I don't expect much credibility from such arguments.
You seem quite rattled. I wonder at that. If you up-front believe and are not ashamed of what you say you believe, why be rattled?
You don't believe the Bible to be true. Are you somehow ashamed of that belief? If you stand there, then, good grief, man up and stand there.
I believe that before reporting your challenges to or protests of my beliefs, you should state them fairly and accurately. I still contend that in your earlier post, you knowingly didn't do that.
I believe I did characterize you correctly and respectfully as you have stated your beliefs yourself many times on forums. If not, then please correct them. So far you only validated what I said in your own words above quite clearly.
-
@GaoLu said:
Exactly. At issue for me was a reminder to us all where you stand as you make your perpetually critical arguments. That was all. I don't expect much credibility from such arguments.
Whether you "expect much credibility" from my arguments due to my view of the Bible is, yet again, NOT the issue. The issue - as it was and always will be - is whether you fairly and accurately summarized my view of the Bible when you said I "do not believe the Bible to be true," and "have no appeal to the Bible as truth." In your view, those words "correctly and respectfully" characterize my view of the Bible. In my view, they do not. Earlier in this thread, I offered a brief summary of some of my views of the Bible. Interested parties can read that summary and your characterization, then decide for themselves whether it is correct and respectful.
In the meantime, we move on.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"Say it ain't so, GaoLu"??? You DO realize that I'm reading this thread too, don't you, C.M.?
CM: Yes.
Bill: "I AM the subject of your concern"
CM: Based on the statement I read about you. Should I have inquired of you directly? Yes, "my bad."Bill: "the one whose point of view on the Bible, you claim, renders me "without a knowledge of God, faith, a guide to live by, without hope for the afterlife, death or the resurrection," and is therefore what you called "a sad and hopeless person."
CM: Believe it or not, my heart's intent was not so much directed at you, but to a person in general, if the statement proved to be true. My failure to pivot (to the "any man") as my intent to do appeared to be directed at you personally. I am sorry to offend you. I don't know as much of your views on the Bible, perhaps, as Gao Lu does. I left the old CD over a year before returning now.However, when my statement is applied to the "any man", as intended, I stand behind it.
Bill: "I hope you'll share with us why you decided to express your concern for my state to Gao Lu rather than to me."
CM: Stated above. Really, it was so much about Bill. If you notice, I didn't use the pronoun, "he", but the words, "parties" and "so many". If I am allowed to quote myself, I said:"Perhaps, a thread needs to be started to review, again, the Inspiration of the Bible, its promises, hope abd [and] God (whom so many don't know or deny his existence). It would be quite fruitless to engage in meaningful conversations when the parties don't agree among themselves, the basic and ultimate principles of authority."
Lastly, as you can see, there was the possibility of someone starting a new thread on the subject the Inspiration of the Bible.
Bill: "(And I hope you'll review the summary of my view of the Bible that I posted, and then address the question of whether Gao Lu's summary of it - which seems to have prompted your alarm - is fair and accurate.)"
CM: Enough on this matter. The end! CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
Ping group: A purely human Jesus, one who is not God, cannot provide eternal life, not even for himself.
-
@Dave_L said:
Ping group: A purely human Jesus, one who is not God, cannot provide eternal life, not even for himself.Says Dave_L .... the apostle Paul mentioned the mediator between God and man, by whose accomplished work of redemption and salvation, humans who believe on that mediator will receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16) ... according to 1Ti 2:5, this mediator is a human being, THE MAN Christ Jesus ... (no God-man, no both God+man, no 1/3 Godhead person, no more than a human being, etc)
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Ping group: A purely human Jesus, one who is not God, cannot provide eternal life, not even for himself.Says Dave_L .... the apostle Paul mentioned the mediator between God and man, by whose accomplished work of redemption and salvation, humans who believe on that mediator will receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16) ... according to 1Ti 2:5, this mediator is a human being, THE MAN Christ Jesus ... (no God-man, no both God+man, no 1/3 Godhead person, no more than a human being, etc)
But you miss the most important part. Had Jesus not been God, we could not have the eternal righteousness of God imputed to us. Had Jesus been only a good man, we would have only finite temporal righteousness imputed to us.
“God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Another way to say it: The Unitarian "Christ" can only impart temporal finite righteousness because he, according to them, is not God. You would be back at square one, as if Adam never sinned.
But in Christ, God used Adam's sin to remove that level of righteousness from us so we could have the very righteousness of God imputed to us. Only that level of righteousness merits eternal life.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Ping group: A purely human Jesus, one who is not God, cannot provide eternal life, not even for himself.Says Dave_L .... the apostle Paul mentioned the mediator between God and man, by whose accomplished work of redemption and salvation, humans who believe on that mediator will receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16) ... according to 1Ti 2:5, this mediator is a human being, THE MAN Christ Jesus ... (no God-man, no both God+man, no 1/3 Godhead person, no more than a human being, etc)
But you miss the most important part. Had Jesus not been God, we could not have the eternal righteousness of God imputed to us. Had Jesus been only a good man, we would have only finite temporal righteousness imputed to us.
Claims Dave_L .... Scripture knows no such distinction of two different kinds (eternal vs finite) of righteousness. This is your somewhat fancy idea to uphold an incorrect unbiblical idea.
“God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Yes ... but where does this talk about eternal vs finite righteousness ?????
In what the man Christ Jesus, the mediator between God and man, achieved by his sacrifice, we are given righteousness as a gift from God ....Another way to say it: The Unitarian "Christ" can only impart temporal finite righteousness because he, according to them, is not God. You would be back at square one, as if Adam never sinned.
This is straight-forward non-sense .... unfortunately, this was already pointed out to you, but instead of doing some study on the points raised and biblical evidence presented to you, you just repeat over again what you already claimed and what already has been shown to be incorrect.
But in Christ, God used Adam's sin to remove that level of righteousness from us so we could have the very righteousness of God imputed to us. Only that level of righteousness merits eternal life.
???? Has logical thinking forsaken you ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Ping group: A purely human Jesus, one who is not God, cannot provide eternal life, not even for himself.Says Dave_L .... the apostle Paul mentioned the mediator between God and man, by whose accomplished work of redemption and salvation, humans who believe on that mediator will receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16) ... according to 1Ti 2:5, this mediator is a human being, THE MAN Christ Jesus ... (no God-man, no both God+man, no 1/3 Godhead person, no more than a human being, etc)
But you miss the most important part. Had Jesus not been God, we could not have the eternal righteousness of God imputed to us. Had Jesus been only a good man, we would have only finite temporal righteousness imputed to us.
Claims Dave_L .... Scripture knows no such distinction of two different kinds (eternal vs finite) of righteousness. This is your somewhat fancy idea to uphold an incorrect unbiblical idea.
“God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Yes ... but where does this talk about eternal vs finite righteousness ?????
In what the man Christ Jesus, the mediator between God and man, achieved by his sacrifice, we are given righteousness as a gift from God ....Another way to say it: The Unitarian "Christ" can only impart temporal finite righteousness because he, according to them, is not God. You would be back at square one, as if Adam never sinned.
This is straight-forward non-sense .... unfortunately, this was already pointed out to you, but instead of doing some study on the points raised and biblical evidence presented to you, you just repeat over again what you already claimed and what already has been shown to be incorrect.
But in Christ, God used Adam's sin to remove that level of righteousness from us so we could have the very righteousness of God imputed to us. Only that level of righteousness merits eternal life.
???? Has logical thinking forsaken you ?
If Jesus was just a man, we only have man's finite righteousness imputed to us. = temporal physical life. If Jesus is God, we have God's infinite righteousness imputed to us. Infinite righteousness = Eternal life spiritual life. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill: "I AM the subject of your concern"
CM: Based on the statement I read about you. Should I have inquired of you directly? Yes, "my bad."
...
CM: Enough on this matter. The end! CMThanks for the response, C.M. and for bringing resolution to the matter. I appreciate and accept your apology.
FYI, I was not offended by your previous comments - irritated, yes!
- but not offended. In the ChristianDiscourse.com forums I was, and these forums I remain deeply committed to the stated expectation that participants will "criticize ideas, not people." Out of my commitment to that principle I responded to your comments about the state of people who hold certain points of view about the Bible.I have to refer to "people who hold" those viewpoints rather than to myself because, as I think I have made clear in my exchange with Gao Lu, his suggestion that I "believe the Bible is not true," and therefore "have no appeal to the Bible as truth" is... pick any or all of the following... flawed, misguided, uninformed, incomplete, inadequate, simplistic, wrong.
As for my point of view about the Bible, I offered a hurried and unrefined summary of it in a post on p.12 of this thread. I would welcome an engagement with you on the content of that summary or on the broader subject of the authority/inspiration of the Bible... but, please, not on the subject of the state of people who hold views on that subject.
Blessings,
Bill -
Jesus, as an innocent man, having finite righteousness, could only atone for one sinner. Pro quid pro so to speak. But as God, having infinite righteousness, he can atone for all the Father gave him.
-
Jesus, the Savior of the world.
For Jesus to be the savior of a world cursed by sin, resulting in the salvation of the new heavens and earth and all therein, he must be greater than all. Only God can redeem an entire universe and all that is therein. If Jesus were a mere man without sin, he could atone for one man only.
-
@Dave_L said:
If Jesus was just a man, we only have man's finite righteousness imputed to us. = temporal physical life. If Jesus is God, we have God's infinite righteousness imputed to us. Infinite righteousness = Eternal life spiritual life. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.and repeating the same claim once again ... plus mixing in unrelated illogical and unreasonable points to supposedly make an argument that isn't one
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus, as an innocent man, having finite righteousness, could only atone for one sinner. Pro quid pro so to speak. But as God, having infinite righteousness, he can atone for all the Father gave him.one more of the same as previously already mentionend
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus, the Savior of the world.
For Jesus to be the savior of a world cursed by sin, resulting in the salvation of the new heavens and earth and all therein, he must be greater than all. Only God can redeem an entire universe and all that is therein. If Jesus were a mere man without sin, he could atone for one man only.Well, was it not God Who gave His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus, the Savior of the world.
For Jesus to be the savior of a world cursed by sin, resulting in the salvation of the new heavens and earth and all therein, he must be greater than all. Only God can redeem an entire universe and all that is therein. If Jesus were a mere man without sin, he could atone for one man only.Well, was it not God Who gave His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus ??
But God will not accept unjust weights or measures. One sinless man can can redeem only one sinner. It takes God with infinite worth to redeem the entire universe and all that will populate it.
-
@Dave_L said:
Well, was it not God Who gave His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus ??
But God will not accept unjust weights or measures. One sinless man can can redeem only one sinner. It takes God with infinite worth to redeem the entire universe and all that will populate it.
You appear to know more than God Himself ... On the other hand, maybe your ideas are only assumptions or speculation?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Well, was it not God Who gave His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus ??
But God will not accept unjust weights or measures. One sinless man can can redeem only one sinner. It takes God with infinite worth to redeem the entire universe and all that will populate it.
You appear to know more than God Himself ... On the other hand, maybe your ideas are only assumptions or speculation?
Do you think one sinless man can exchange himself for more than one sinner and still have a fair trade?
Even if the sinless man traded himself for the other, how could he gain more than what the other originally had in the exchange?
If God is Just, how could the unjust man gain Eternal life, the life that only God has, in the exchange?
It is only because Jesus is God, that he could purchase Eternal life for not only all whom the Father gave to him, but the entire saved universe along with it.
-
@Dave_L said:
Do you think one sinless man can exchange himself for more than one sinner and still have a fair trade???? from where now does this idea about "fair trade" / "exchange" come into the picture, which has nothing to do with the topic?
Even if the sinless man traded himself for the other, how could he gain more than what the other originally had in the exchange?
more carefully reading the Bible and thereby gaining an overall scope of what the Scriptures state concerning man's sin and man's redemption from sin would help greatly ... adhering to man made dogmas does NOT provide you with truth.
If God is Just, how could the unjust man gain Eternal life, the life that only God has, in the exchange?
The Bible tells the story ...
It is only because Jesus is God, that he could purchase Eternal life for not only all whom the Father gave to him, but the entire saved universe along with it.
Some more linking of points which actually have little or nothing to do with each other ... in addition, more "dogma" rather than Scripture (e.g. "purchase eternal life ...")
-
Here's another passage saying Jesus is God. Notice first that God will live in people he calls his temple.
“And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, “I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore “come out from their midst, and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch no unclean thing, and I will welcome you,and I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,” says the All-Powerful Lord.” (2 Corinthians 6:16–18)
Then Paul says: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)
And Peter also says:
“inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:11)
-
@Dave_L said:
Here's another passage saying Jesus is God. Notice first that God will live in people he calls his temple.
“And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, “I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore “come out from their midst, and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch no unclean thing, and I will welcome you,and I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,” says the All-Powerful Lord.” (2 Corinthians 6:16–18)This passage says nothing about Jesus is God. We just see a little more and once again, how unrelated passages are linked together to supposedly prove something which they do not say ...
Furthermore, I again would suggest to more carefully read and accurately understand how OT passages are quoted in NT scriptures. Although modern day folks are rather quick in talking about "God/Jesus lives IN them" (as if there was God or Jesus in a literal sense living inside a person), I would point out that the "in" when used in context of "people" actually describes and means "among".
A knowledge about the use of figures of speech in Scripture unfortunately seems at a very low level for many, even here on these forums.
Then Paul says: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)
What does "the Spirit OF God" mean/describe? What does "the Spirit OF Christ" mean/describe? Is "Spirit" equal in meaning to "person", sort of like "the person God" and "the person Christ"? are these "two Spirits"? If not, why are two different terms used?
Unless you understand what the exact meaning of these terms is, don't try and tell us a dogma based on your incomplete or lack of knowledge ...
And Peter also says:
“inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:11)And how is this verse supposed to say that Jesus is God (cp. your claim in the opening sentence of your post) ?? Did God endure sufferings before glories followed? Since when is God subject to suffering inflicted on Him by humans??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Here's another passage saying Jesus is God. Notice first that God will live in people he calls his temple.
“And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, “I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore “come out from their midst, and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch no unclean thing, and I will welcome you,and I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,” says the All-Powerful Lord.” (2 Corinthians 6:16–18)This passage says nothing about Jesus is God.
Furthermore, I again would suggest to more carefully read and accurately understand how OT passages are quoted in NT scriptures. Although modern day folks are rather quick in talking about "God/Jesus lives IN them" (as if there was God or Jesus in a literal sense living inside a person), I would point out that the "in" when used in context of "people" actually describes and means "among".
A knowledge about the use of figures of speech in Scripture unfortunately seems at a very low level for many, even here on these forums.
Then Paul says: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)
What does "the Spirit OF God" mean/describe? What does "the Spirit OF Christ" mean/describe? Is "Spirit" equal in meaning to "person", sort of like "the person God" and "the person Christ"? are these "two Spirits"? If not, why are two different terms used?
Unless you understand what the exact meaning of these terms is, don't try and tell us a dogma based on your incomplete or lack of knowledge ...
And Peter also says:
“inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:11)And how is this verse supposed to say that Jesus is God (cp. your claim in the opening sentence of your post) ?? Did God endure sufferings before glories followed? Since when is God subject to suffering inflicted on Him by humans??
If you read the passage in light of the others, it says everything about Jesus being God.
Here's another problem with your denial of Christ's deity.
The Old Testament clearly teaches that a man cannot die for the sins of another man. Children cannot suffer for their parent's sin under law. So if Jesus was merely a man, he would sin under OT Law trying to atone for the sins of another.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
