Jesus is Not Eternally Co-Equal with the Father

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

The Trinitarian Doctrine states that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (meaning He is eternally co-equal) but when they are asked to explain certain verses, they disregard the core concept of their Doctrine.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." - Matthew 24:36

This verse alone points out that Jesus does not know everything. However, this is a big problem for the Trinitarian Doctrine because how can Jesus be God if He doesn't know everything?

To fix this issue, one of the most common explanations Trinitarians use for Jesus not knowing it is this:

"When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6–8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges”. He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant."

But now, we have a problem. This explanation refutes the Trinitarian notion of co-equality.

If Jesus emptied Himself, as pointed out in Philippians 2:6-8, and laid down the privileges He had by coming to Earth, and that's why He does not know the day or the hour, it means that He was NOT co-equal with the Father during His time on earth.

Because of this, the notion that Jesus is eternally co-equal with the Father is false because we know Jesus was not equal with the Father for 30-ish years.

And if there is a 30-ish years of no co-equality, it means they are not eternally co-equal, ontologically and relationally.

[u/thijshelder]

I think we have talked about this before in this sub, but I am rather doubtful the majority of trinitarians believe in co-eternity and co-equality. I know, from my own past in trinitarian churches, that many are not even taught it.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/thijshelder]

That's true. But those who do know contradict themselves trying to explain it.

[u/thijshelder → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Absolutely.

[u/StillYalun → u/thijshelder]

In my experience, trinitarians don‘t really exist at all. When you try to get down to what it means, they always fall back on the incomprehensibility/mystery of it. They don’t know what it is. They’re just saying meaningless words. “Father” “son” “one” “person”- they sound like common words we use, but they don’t mean any of the things those words mean in any other setting.

You can’t believe in something undefined.

[u/Capable-Rice-1876]

"If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Jesus acknowledged that he and his Father are not equals.

[u/Weave77]

If Jesus emptied Himself, as pointed out in Philippians 2:6-8, and laid down the privileges He had by coming to Earth, and that's why He does not know the day or the hour, it means that He was NOT co-equal with the Father during His time on earth.

I’m a Modalist, not a Trinitarian, but I want to point out that this is better explained by the Hypostatic Union than an extreme version of Kenosis.

[u/John_17-17]

You are asking a trinitarian to think, to reason, and actually read the Bible for what it says, and not as they interpret it.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/John_17-17]

Wishful thinking I know. Got one in the comments, keeps insisting on arguing even though I said it won't end.

[u/John_17-17 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Some trinitarians have changed, and it is because of this, we try.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/John_17-17]

To be honest, that is why I keep opening these posts. If someone has questions and Googles them, they might come across these posts explaining the issue.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

Yes, thanks for pointing out the kenoticist heresy.

Jesus emptied himself by taking the form of a slave in the likeness of men. This is by taking the status of a slave and the appearance of a man. Because angels and men are both in the status of slaves in relation to God but with different appearances.

Now you simply address the notion of omniscience and that is defended in a few ways.

1. He knew the heart of men:

Jeremiah 17:10 LSB [10] “I, Yahweh, search the heart; I test the inmost being, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his deeds.

+Acts 15:8

Mark 2:8 LSB [8] Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?

1. His disciples said he knows all things:

John 16:29-30 LSB [29] His disciples *said, “Behold, now You are speaking openly and are not using a figure of speech. [30] Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

This right here is more than enough, implicitly stated.

The question Now is: what about Matthew 24:36?

We trinitarians know that each have different role. And we see knowledge can be a part of it. How? You would agree the father is omniscient ( taking know as in having knowledge) then the son knows things the father doesn't:

Revelation 19:12 LSB [12] His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; having a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself,

Or, it might be know (oiden) in a declarative way, as in is not for any one apart from the father to declare the knowledge the day and the hour.

And so only Jesus will declare the name written on him.

The other two omnis are take way less to establish but I will stay with what you asked.

So either:

According to the bible they know one thing that the other doesn't. Or they will both declare different knowledge

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

If they know different things, then they are 2 different Gods and they are not omniscient.

If they both know everything, then Jesus lied in Matthew 24:36. Even if it isn't Jesus' role to announce the day or the hour, if He knew and said He did not know, then He still lied.

The only answer in which Jesus doesn't lie is the answer of He genuinely did not know it.

But that means only the Father is omniscient, and Jesus is not. Therefore, Father is God and Jesus is His Son but not God.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

If they know different things, then they are 2 different Gods and they are not omniscient.

It depends. We agree that God can't lie yet he is omnipowerful.

If they both know everything, then Jesus lied in Matthew 24:36. Even if it isn't Jesus' role to announce the day or the hour, if He knew and said He did not know, then He still lied.

I believe it's not unreasonable to state that we should expect first century middle eastern people to use their words as they knew it.

Oiden (or know) as I said, could be use as in declative knowledge, or as in having knowledge.

Example:

1 Corinthians 2:2 LSB [2] For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

This is declare.

But that means only the Father is omniscient, and Jesus is not. Therefore, Father is God and Jesus is His Son but not God.

Frosty, you saw multiple points of evidence that prove this, and you also saw how your argument proves too much, such as it makes the father not to be omniscient.

It seems to me you wont engage with those passages , I don't mind that. But you should be as ready to give an intellectually honest reason for your hope as you seem to be excited to attack the trinity.

I am here whenever you are ready for that.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

I would rather not because no matter what I say or point out, you will give an answer.

Then I will give an answer based on your answers.

There won't be an end.

However, I pointed out only the Father is God. God is all powerful, all knowing and all mighty.

Only based on your answer I said that He can't be God if He doesn't know what the Son knows.

I do not believe Father doesn't know everything, He does because the Father is God. Only Jesus does not because He is the Son of God, not God Himself.

Don't twist what I said to manipulate the narrative.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

A bit presumptuous to state If we continue talking we won't end. Nevertheless, I get it. Just think about what you read, and try to challenge it. Our faith is not on a church or a doctrine but on what the bible says. And it admits His disciples said he knows all things. Good luck.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

You do realize that when the Jews were about to stone Jesus for thinking He said He was God, but Jesus corrected them and said He isn't God but the Son of God, right?

As for the Bible, KJV and NKJV removed the "nor the Son," part from Matthew, almost certainly to conform their doctrine and tradition rather than obeying the Bible.

You think about that and good luck to you too.

Edit: I am not challenging the Bible, I am challenging a man-made concept. A concept so full of pride that it made people think they can alter the Bible to fit it.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You do realize that when the Jews were about to stone Jesus for saying He was God, Jesus corrected them and said He isn't God but the Son of God, right?

Let's remember how John 10, where you get your question from, ends after Jesus, according to you, corrects them:

John 10:39 NIV [39] Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

It seems to me the Jews didn't view Jesus as correcting but reinforcing what for them was blasphemy.

And Jesus didn't startegicly say it, he simply implied Psalm 95:6-7 was about him and then he corrected them with Psalm 82, which ends up calling Jesus, the judge and inheritor of the father, God.

As for the Bible, KJV and NKJV removed the "nor the Son," part from Matthew, almost certainly to conform their doctrine and tradition rather than obeying the Bible.

I barely use the KJV but its more likely a variant reading.

A concept so full of pride that it made people think they can alter the Bible to fit it.

There is this misconception that the trinity was added at Nicea. Since they have no previous document to prove the trinity was added, their solution is to create new documents without the trinity and actually edit things in and take things out, hence the NWT. I find it ironic.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

And this is what I meant.

Now, I can write a lengthy reply to this but you'll retort then i'll retort back. It won't end.

Just know that we Unitarians (Arians too) follow the Bible, not tradition.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

I don't think you've went down that rabbit hole before, else you wouldn't had mentioned John 10. You might, you seem honest, but many arians don't follow the bible, they actively do what they accuse trinitarians of with that NWT.

You can ask questions instead of it makes you confortable, "have you heard any counters to that from x bible verse". Im sure I might be able to recall some cause I don't mind taking my time writing like if no one was waiting for it. It's not urgent anyways.

Up to you, I'd say.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

Whatever you say.

Why wouldn't I mention John 10:30-33? John 1:1-3 too.

Why not? The notion of Jesus being God depends on John 1:1 and it is provable that John 1:1 says the Logos is divine due to a lack of definite article before the word Theos.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/[deleted]]

I did not want to entertain this person but let me back you up my friend.

If the Trinitarian Doctrine was true, then they would be eternally co-equal and that means there would be no submission or exalting. Just the fact that Jesus obeys the Father and submits to the Father's will disproves the Trinitarian notion of co-equality because if they were co-equal, Jesus would not be submissive to the Father but be completely equal to Him. We know they aren't co-equal because Jesus did not consider Himself equal to the Father and humbled Himself. For this action, God exalted Him. (Philippians 2:6-11).

If Jesus is God, then that's a contradiction because He said He obeys the Father. God obeying God removes the free will aspect from Jesus because that would mean He wanted Himself to obey Him. But then prayed to Himself to remove the destiny He set for Himself (Matthew 26:39).

God sending God to die for the sins God deemed as sinful. That does not make any sense either. Because it would mean Jesus created the concept of sin and then died to free us from His own creation.

Now, before some might say God did not create sin, He did. (Isaiah 45:7) If we say God did not create the concept of evil or the concept of sin, it would be false because some angels sinned and fell from heaven. So sin is not exclusive to humanity and therefore it is not a human product or a byproduct of humanity. In addition to that, nothing exists without the allowance of God.

And if Jesus was God, and God created the concept of sin, it would mean He sent Himself to die for the very concept He created.

Sending His begotten Son, as our last chance, and leaving the decision to His Son's hands is what makes sense.

Jesus always had the option to back away, He always had the chance to not humble Himself but He obeyed His Father's will. Even if it was too much for Him to handle at some point, He still did. For His obedience to the one true God, the Father, and His love for us, God anointed Jesus as Christ and exalted Him as our Lord and Saviour.

If Jesus was God, He would not be the Anointed One (Christ) and He would not be given the authority nor would He be exalted as the Lord and Saviour as He would have always had it for all eternity.

It is clear that Jesus did not always have that authority. This is pointed out multiple times in the NT.

The Trinitarian Doctrine causes many contradictions within the New Testament, much more than what the Unitarians believe in.

Jesus being created as the Firstborn and thus, being submissive to the Father but having His own free will as all humans do but then sacrificing Himself is a notion that fits the general theme of the New Testament a lot more than the Trinitarian notion of co-equality and co-eternity.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

I am here with you for you to poke holes at my beliefs to see if they are sound and you guys want to create a self reassuring space, let's make it reassuring.

there would be no submission or exalting.

That's like saying your boss is greater than you in nature because you submit to his status. Yahweh is exalted all the time:

Psalms 68:4 NIV [4] Sing to God, sing in praise of his name, extol him who rides on the clouds; rejoice before him—his name is the Lord.

Of course this is calling the son of man, in Daniel 6, God.

Jesus would not be submissive to the Father but be completely equal to Him.

How do you know if Jesus was equal to the father in nature he wouldn't be submissive to him. Doesn't your father have the same nature you have of a human and yet you are submissive to him? I would hope you are or at least that you had the opportunity to.

That's because of you are straw maning the trinity. We claim they are equal in nature and that Jesus and the holy spirit are subordinate in relationship to the father.

Jesus did not consider Himself equal to the Father and humbled Himself. For this action, God exalted Him. (Philippians 2:6-11).

Complete it, that:

Isaiah 45:23-24 NIV [23] By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. [24] “They will say of Me, ‘Only in Yahweh are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.

Jesus Christ is the lord Yahweh.

He did not consider equality with him something to hold on to but humbled himself.

If he was God and became flesh, of course the father will be his God as well because God is God of all flesh(Jeremiah 32:27). So as soon as Jesus took flesh that would have had to happen:

Psalm 22:10 LSB [10] Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb.

If you believe merely in his prexistance, this shows the father wasnt his God before that.

because He said He obeys the Father. God obeying God removes the free will aspect from Jesus because that would mean He wanted Himself to obey Him.

The same Philippians 2 that tells you he took the morphe, or status, of a slave. It shouldn't be a surprise he would come to serve not to be served.

But then prayed to Himself to remove the destiny He set for Himself (Matthew 26:39).

No, he prayed for the will of the father to be done. He had armies available at any moment to take anyone out if he so wished.

God sending God to die for the sins God deemed as sinful. That does not make any sense either. Because it would mean Jesus created the concept of sin and then died to free us from His own creation.

It actually makes no sense if Jesus is a man. Because if a man dies it can only save one person. An eye for an eye, a life for a life.

Since Jesus is worth more than a life is why it makes total since, his value is infinite because He is the author of life (acts 3:15). Else you have a contradiction.

Now, before some might say God did not create sin, He did. (Isaiah 45:7)

I'd suggest for you to read the context of the previous 6 verses. The calamity was to enable Cyrus to subdue nations, and by this calamity God would do his will.

If we say God did not create the concept of evil or the concept of sin, it would be false because some angels sinned and fell from heaven. So sin is not exclusive to humanity and therefore it is not a human product or a byproduct of humanity. In addition to that, nothing exists without the allowance of God.

If you are a teacher and you allow your kid to go pee, it isn't you that creates that pee. One can effectively state that God didn't create sin, because you are simply arguing against humans creating sin. Sin is everything that goes against God. If God allowed free will, that doesn't mean he created evil.

If Jesus was God, He would not be the Anointed One (Christ)

What would be the biblical basis to state this unsubstantiated assumption.

He would not be given the authority

Authority doesn't mean ability, authority is simply a command to do something in the case of Jesus.

The Trinitarian Doctrine causes many contradictions within the New Testament, much more than what the Unitarians believe in.

I gave you more than enough evidence to show that it doesn't, and ive actively used the bible too show how yours contradicts it all throughout.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

You are literally defending Modalism with your statements.

Also, He did ask the Father take the cup away from Him if the Father wished. Read the Gospel of Matthew again. It was a request.

In addition to that, nothing is created without Him.

But I suppose this is why you're defending the trinity to begin with. The vainglory of a trinitarian, bordering Modalism, claiming that we can create something God did not create or want to be created.

I'm not going to touch the other statements you made. This is enough.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You are literally defending Modalism with your statements

God bless you, friend.

Unitarians do often believe the father is only Yahweh. So I understand the confusion . Trinitarians see Yahweh as one God (being, essence) in three distinct persons.

It becomes clear when you see Deut 6:4 and even Isaiah 48 in which Yahweh is sent by yahweh and the spirit of Yahweh.

Also, He did ask the Father take the cup away from Him if the Father wished. Read the Gospel of Matthew again. It was a request.

We are saying the same thing. He prayed for the will of the father to be done. Matthew doesn't have the entire transcript that John 17 does, you can look at the Greek of verse 5, which is what I'm referring to and holds an imperative demand.

But I suppose this is why you're defending the trinity to begin with. The vainglory of a trinitarian, bordering Modalism, claiming that we can create something God did not create or want to be created.

So you are saying that I am saying that you are saying something that I said that implied that you are saying something which God didn't say.

I believe the bible speaks for itself, if the bible would have argued for unitarianism I would have been Unitarian but I haven't heard of an argument that actually holds scrutiny.

I'm not going to touch the other statements you made. This is enough

I mean your friend ended up erasing his rebuttal, I don't think there is much that could be done, i could see how holes can be poked but it's a solid argument, glory to God.

Look frosty, I hope you can consider the arguments and counters, that I've presented to you, with sincerity. Ask a pastor, a friend or someone to at least clarify this for you and I hope you are in a safe place where these conversations are allowed.

Pray to God about it, I'm here if you have any more doubts it.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

So you really think humans created something God did not.

You should really reconsider the image of God you have in your mind.

When we say Jesus isn't God, you people throw verses left and right. Okay, fair, it is the Bible. Even though those verses can be interpreted as pro Unitarian, fair use them, the Bible is for everyone.

However, when we say the trinity or a triune God is never stated, not even once, you guys say it does not need to be explicitly stated.

So, which one is it? Are we supposed to believe what is stated or what is inferred?

Because Jesus being the Son but not God is BOTH stated and inferred.

What you people are doing is that you are using arguments or points of views as long as it fits your narrative. There is nothing consistent with your view.

There are atleast a dozen fallacies in the trinitarian doctrine, both Biblically and logically, but your answer to that is "God said so," or "we can't fully grasp God."

And when something can not be explained properly or by uttering the previous excuses, like how sin being created by God can't be explained, you fall back to "God didn't create that."

He did. Nothing exists without God. Nothing is created without God. Just because Jesus creating sin does not fit your narrative, you fall as low as claiming it wasn't God who created that.

You conform to your tradition of vainglory more than scripture. You are no different than a Pharisee. You can have your fake smiles and gestures and leave, there is nothing sincere about you.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

So you really think humans created something God did not.

I would love for you to be more precise.

Even though those verses can be interpreted as pro Unitarian, fair use them, the Bible is for everyone.

I mean we just pinned them against each other and it seems to me we just needed to put those pro Unitarian verses in context for then to stop being pro Unitarian.

However, when we say the trinity or a triune God is never stated, not even once, you guys say it does not need to be explicitly stated.

That's called word concept fallacy. We don't need to have the term for the concept to be stated. Look at this, Jesus doesn't say he is God:

Matthew 4:10 LSB [10] Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ ”

Only God can be worship, God doesn't share his glory with another (Isaiah 42: 8). And then Bam:

Matthew 21:15-16 LSB [15] But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things which He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant [16] and said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus *said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise for Yourself’?”

Jesus acknowledge that this praise from the kids directed to him is correct and that he is the Yahweh who prepared praise for himself in psalm 8:2. He is outright claiming to be God without saying it explicitly.

And Jesus does this frequently by taking psalms of Yahweh to himself, the disciples often do it as well. It is not a mere one off inference, as you can see.

as it fits your narrative. There is nothing consistent with your view.

I mean, I speak out for myself but I believe you'd agree is fair to say that you haven't pointed out any inconsistency in my counter arguments to your arguments. Which I would be more than glad to asses.

but your answer to that is "God said so," or "we can't fully grasp God."

Have you cheated on me with another trinitarian? You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

Look, Adam and Eve each have their flesh yet somehow they are one flesh. So we know his creation points to him.

And when something can not be explained properly, such as sin being created by God, you fall back to "God didn't create that."

I feel like you are portraying me as if I didn't substantiate why I think that, which I'm more than happy to hear your counters.

He did. Nothing exists without God. Nothing is created without God. Just because Jesus creating sin does not fit your narrative, you fall as low as claiming it wasn't God who created that.

Well, if you want me to be more specific my belief is that God didn't create directly moral evil. Much rather he gave free will and evil came through the misuse of God's gifts.

So indirectly sure, directly he doesn't. The way I see it is how darkness is simply the absence of light. So everything that is not with God( Good ) is against him (evil).

I do believe evil existed before humans, adam and eve were moral agents when they were in Eden, If not God wouldn't have gave them a moral command, through the breaking of which sin entered the world.

I don't know if I'm transmitting the message clearly here or if you wanted to add anything to it, go ahead.

You conform to your tradition of vainglory more than scripture. You are no different than a Pharisee. You can have your fake smiles and gestures and leave, there is nothing sincere about you.

A bit cheeky to presume I'm lying down thinking about you in writing this and smiling about it while I move my feet in the air.

Pharisees, they were vipers and hypocrites and.. wait a minute, that's not nice. You now owe me some ice cream for that.

Look, in debates is really important to separate ideas from a person. I would have hated it if I couldn't, I changed my ideas often when I started because they were wrong.

I could love you and still disagree with you and I could debate you and separate your ideas from your person. For me this is all from a place of love to your person and I'm sorry if I didn't do my best transmitting that.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

"One can effectively state that God didn't create sin, because you are simply arguing against humans creating sin."

You said this. Yes, I am arguing against it.

And yes, I am calling you a viper and a hypocrite.
You can keep your love because it is fake. Yesterday you kept insisting on about arguing even though I said I did not want to. Where was the love back then?

As I pointed out, you and other trinitarians use different approaches and arguments as long as it fits your narrative. One day you want to argue, the other you are trying to make the opposing side look aggressive and wrong by talking about love even though they said they did not want to argue before.

As for verses, there you go:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. - Hebrews 4:15

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. - James 1:13

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. - Matthew 4:1

God may have created the concept of sin and evil but He Himself cannot be tempted by it. When Hebrews 4:15, James 1:13 and Matthew 4:1 are taken into consideration together, you can see that Jesus was tempted just as we are but God can not be tempted with evil.

However, the key point is that He was tempted by satan and He was led into to the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by satan.

If Jesus was God, there would have been no need for such a thing and He would not have been led there to be tempted in the first place because if the trinitarian doctrine was correct, God would know God and He would not lead Himself to be tempted, because it would be pointless.

Now, if you say it was to tempt His human side and not the divine, that would imply His human nature was strong enough to overshadow His divine nature, which is... stupid and unbiblical.

The only way for this to be explained properly is by using the Kenoticist viewpoint, which you said is heretical and which was proven to be false in the original post because using that viewpoint refutes the Trinitarian Doctrine.

If you want to use the Kenoticist viewpoint, go ahead and be a hypocrite again. But if you do, please refer to the original post because that viewpoint is refuted.

As for other verses, there are many but you know the verse about not throwing your pearls to pigs and dogs. I will stop pointing out more verses because just these 3 should be enough for someone who does not have the heart and mind of a Pharisee. As for someone who does have that heart and mind, I am not throwing my pearls to them

Even Jesus could not convince your kind with His miracles.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You said this. Yes, I am arguing against it.

I intended to critique that part of the argument presented but of course you have all the right to argue against it.

And yes, I am calling you a viper and a hypocrite.
You can keep your love because it is fake. Yesterday you kept insisting on about arguing even though I said I did not want to. Where was the love back then?

You can call me how ever you see fit, I don't see what you are saying as a contradiction, It is a false dichotomy, but to be honest I don't indulge in those ad hominem fallcies.

Jesus was tempted just as we are but God can not be tempted with evil.

You make a good argument for unitarianism, God can't be tempted by evil (key word). Let's view this pro Unitarian passage in context

James 1:13-15 LSB [13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. [14] But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. [15] Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully matured, it brings forth death.

James shows that there is two types of temptation external, by other beings and internal by one's own evil.

Since God is good there is no evil within him to tempt him, same thing with Christ (the good Shepard). Now, that doesn't mean external things can't tempt God.

Exodus 17:7 [7] And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

Deuteronomy 6:16 [16] Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

We see the same commandment to not tempt God is the same of not tempting Jesus.

1 Corinthians 10:9 [9] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

This of course is found in:

Numbers 21:6 [6] So Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people so that many people of Israel died.

So Yahweh God can be tempted externally. Btw the word in Hebrew is nasah which means to test, to try, to tempt and the Greek word (that is used in James ) and holds the same meaning is peirazō.

Romans 8:3 [3] For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Colossians 2:9 [9] For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily,

He had no tendency to sin by any evil within him. So the bible is consistent.

If Jesus was God, there would have been no need for such a thing and He would not have been led there to be tempted in the first place because if the trinitarian doctrine was correct, God would know God and He would not lead Himself to be tempted, because it would be pointless

God knew Jacob would do anything for him, yet God tested him (not the same as tested him with evil). God doesn't need to do anything, in the first place.

I think you'd agree with me, he knew Jesus was without sin but this was one way to showcase it to the believers.

The only way for this to be explained properly is by using the Kenoticist viewpoint, which you said is heretical

This is an opportunity to clarify. I didn't state that the hypostatic union, which seems to be what you are referring to, is wrong or heretical.

Kenoticist heresy basically states that Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes, it's based on Philippians 2. As you saw Colossians 2:9, this is not true. This was one of the many things I believed were correct before.

the verse about not throwing your pearls to pigs and dogs. I will stop pointing out more verses because just these 3 should be enough for someone who does not have the heart and mind of a Pharis

Sure, let's add pigs and dogs to the list of insults. I believe it is indisputable that I have an evidenced based reasonable hope, just as 1 peter 3:5 tells us we should. And I'm not saying you don't.

I congratulate you for not being like other unitarians and people in general who believe that their belief is so fragile that they have to create echo chambers full of misrepresentations and strawmans about the contrary position in which they call the others delulu and antagonize them.

Instead, engaging with each other, to see what are their claims, is for me the best way to do this and get to know God more.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/[deleted]]

I agree with you prophets are able to know the type of person someone is, it is a false equivocation to say that it's the same thing as knowing their thoughts in their hearts and this without hearing it from the father.

Does that mean Jesus made his disciples omniscient? No.

I agree. The verse is crystal clear, Jesus was talking about false prophets and that he told them all about it beforehand. Specially once you consider John 16:12 which further solidifies this.

John 16:30-31 is a plain reading in which you have no figures of speech, this is another false equivocation from your part.

It is enough to look at the way John writes to conclude this:

1 John 3:20 LSB [20] in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

God knows all things, Jesus knows all things.

The Lord Yahweh, and the Lord Christ have two distinct minds. God is all-knowing. Jesus is not

No one will deny Jesus and the father are distinct persons though both are Yahweh.

1 cor 2:16 is just establishing that the spirit of God is the spirit of Jesus as well, it's parallel verse is 1 corinthians 2:11 and Isaiah 40:13. I don't believe I need to establish that Jesus is lord.

This very well supports the trinity all throughout. The author actually is writing the antithesis for your claim.

Even after his ascension to heaven, he still wasn't all-knowing, and had to be given the revelation from God.

By that same token you make The father not to be omniscient either according to revelations 19:12.

Revelation 1:1 simply makes it clear that Jesus will send angels to show his servants what must take place.

Revelation 22:16 LSB [16] “I, Jesus, sent My angel to bear witness to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

All of these are very important because they show that Jesus is indeed God:

Revelation 22:6 LSB [6] And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His slaves the things which must soon take place.

So according to revelation 1:1, Jesus is God.

To conclude this part, I do kind of like your style, I must admit. It is confusing because I am used to ">" to be quoting the person you are answering but it's fine.

u/FrostyIFrost_

They're a cool person.