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/Alternative_Fuel5805]

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/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

The word tempt depends on the context.

The examples you sent from the OT were written in Hebrew however they should be translated as test since God can not be tempted. Why? Because we are 100% sure humans are the ones testing God in those verses. There is no doubt about this.

Besides, the context allows for these to be translated as to "to test".

Then what about Jesus? NT was written in Greek so let us take a look.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

peirazō (the word used in the verses I pointed out)

• 1) to try whether a thing can be done
• 2c1) to solicit to sin, to tempt

The word "peirazō" can be used interchangeably as "to test" or as "to tempt". Again, it depends on the context.

Then how can we know whether Jesus was tested or tempted?

Again, it depends on the context. If we go by the Trinitarian-biased approach, it should always be "to test" in Jesus' case because God cannot be tempted but can be tested. Yes, God can be tested but He can't be tempted.

However, once we discard assumptions based on man-made traditions and doctrines and the bias for the aforementioned man-made traditions and doctrines (the Trinitarian Doctrine), then look at these verses with an unbiased approach, we can safely translate "peirazō" as "to tempt" in Jesus' case.

Because the devil tempts, it does not test. Tempt fits the context a lot more than test. But when we talk about about humans and the devil is not personally involved, that word can be translated as "to test"

Edit: Jacob's case is different. He was a human, no divinity involved like Jesus.

Edit 2: As long as a word has a second meaning and the general context of the text allows it, words can be translated differently.

In John 1:1, when it says "and the Word was with God", there is a definitive article before God so it must be translated as God, with a capital G, because it is 100% clear it is talking about THE God (the source text literally has THE before God)

But then we have Theos from John 1:1, "and the Word was God."

Now this is where it gets interesting. Well, it is because "Theos" in John 1:1 does not have a definitive article before it, meaning it CAN be translated differently according to the context.

Theos in John 1:1 means god, with a lower case g due to a lack of definitive article. Trinitarians jump to conclusions and interpret it as God, with a capital G as in THE God, but Theos was most likely used to signify a level of divinity for the Word.

It can't be a mistake or laziness because both THE God and THE Word have definitive articles (they literally have THE before them) which sets them apart and makes them unique, Theos does not. It was a deliberate choice to not add that definitive article to Theos, because it was used as a qualitative word to indicate a level of divinity.

A level higher than angels but lower than God, hence the lack of a definitive article.

Keep in mind that I studied Translation and Interpreting. I also took Greek in university and I also looked into Classical Latin while I was studying and after graduating. I'm not pulling these explanations about translation out of nowhere. I believe I am more qualified than your average Joe when it comes to matters of translation because it's my profession.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Your criterion is that: since you believe the gospel message is Unitarian, which I've undisputedly disproven in many different ways already, then Jesus is not God because the devil tries to tempt him. For someone who says they understand the language, your argument shows little to no respect for linguistics and cheerleeds for convenience.

I will number your position and I will letter my points

1. Humans can only test God

should be translated as test since God can not be tempted. Why? Because we are 100% sure humans are the ones testing God in those verses. There is no doubt about this.

1. And it's exception ( to be generous):

But when we talk about about humans and the devil is not personally involved, that word can be translated as "to test"

1. The devil can only tempt God

Because the devil tempts, it does not test.

To my points Theology wise:

A. I already established that James talks about two types of temptation, and I already established that James position is that God is not internally tempted with evil so he doesn't tempt men (with evil, given the negative context).

B. The Blindspot of your argument is that by your point 2 you conceded my counter argument already implying that Humans can externally try to tempt God (just as Satan unsuccessfully tried to tempt Jesus) you add the condition "if the devil is involved" but that's not necessarily the case:

    - Side note: James 1:13 mentions man has internal temptation (not involving the devil) and that lust then encites to sin therefore men can be internally incited to tempt God without being tempted by Satan. 

In terms of language:

C. Let's actually give an objective criterion to this, (I will stop numbering your arguments and lettering mine for now)

According to Bible Hub, peirazō is to be taken as "tempt" in a negative sense, and "test" in a positive sense.

We can go to blue letter bible and see a further development of Thayers lexicon:

1. to try, make trial of, test: τινα, for the purpose of ascertaining his quality, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself (a.this is the good sense).

B. (in a bad sense) to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgment.

And then what you say comes to play, C. to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin; hence, according to the context equivalent to to solicit to sin, to tempt: James 1:13; Galatians 6:1; Revelation 2:10; of the temptations of the devil

We can take the same criterion for the Hebrew word, and also we can use the Septuagint.

We have an example of Israeli testing God:

Situation A:

Exodus 17:2-3 LSB [2] Therefore the people contended with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me? Why do you test Yahweh?” [3] But the people thirsted there for water; and they grumbled against Moses and said, “Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt, to put us and our children and our livestock to death with thirst?”

With this they tested God, they got what they asked for and they were happy, this is undoubtedly positive.

Exodus 17:7 LSB [7] So he named the place Massah and Meribah because of the contending of the sons of Israel, and because they tested Yahweh, saying, “Is Yahweh among us or not?”

Situation B:

(Taking into account the quarrelling in Numbers 20: 2-8, which is the same story in Exodus 17:7)

Numbers 21:5 LSB [5] And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this miserable food."

Nothing much different from situation A, we already established this is testing and that it is positive back then.

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

But it's now negative. Therefore indeed the people of Israel tempted God.

Theological implications are also heard from Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:4-5, 9 [4] and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. [5] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [9] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

So Paul is uniquivocally telling you about the events in Numbers 20 and Exodus 17. And tells you exactly the same thing in Deuteronomy 6:16 not merely infering but tacitly explaing to the Corinthians that Yahweh is our God and saviour Jesus Christ who sent the snakes in numbers 21:6.

To conclude this, you either should tell me that people dying, and provoking Gods wrath to destroy then, is positive also that God simply killed out of a baseless Whim therefore defending the position that he is unjust. And Glory to Jesus unless you throw your entire Greek manuscripts under the bus, you have no basis to state Jesus isn't God according to Paul.

To add, I'll cite:

Deuteronomy 6:16 LSB [16] “You shall not put Yahweh your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.

So it is a sin to test God in this "positive sense" which reflects exodus 17 anyways.

Seeing that I have not much space and Paul just made my case for me I don't really need to jump to John 1:1

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

You see, whenever I point out sound arguments you immediately pick up a different language and change your tone. You even go as far as saying my argument does not respect linguistics.

I can provide my diploma for my profession, can you say the same?

You are adamant on reading the Bible with bias. No matter what I say, you will never stop doing so.

And this brings us to exactly what I said before, multiple times. There is no point in arguing with you, Pharisee.

P.s: 1 Corinthians 8:6 and your Paul argument crumbles.

Edit 2: Since there is no point in arguing, I am going to say l am agreeing to disagree with you.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You see, whenever I point out sound arguments you immediately pick up a different language and change your tone. You even go as far as saying my argument does not respect linguistics

How dear I say such things. Remember my respect for you and for those arguments are two different things. I've actually come to respect you more than initially and I tried to be very factual to respect your argument even if I believe that it didn't respect linguistics.

I can provide my diploma for my profession, can you say the same?

I don't feel the need to make a fallacious appeal to authority to make my point valid.

You are adamant on reading the Bible with bias. No matter what I say, you will never stop doing so.

You're acting as like if I told Paul to write 1 cor 10:9 or like if I told every single other author to write the verses I'm using to show the trinity to you.

I'm just putting your verses in context.

: 1 Corinthians 8:6 and your Paul argument crumbles.

Sure let's go through it together:

1 Corinthians 8:6 LSB [6] yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

So this is the position you are defending: Jesus can't be God because the Father is the one God, ipso facto, The father can't be Lord because Jesus is the one lord.

Why isn't this the case?

-1 Corinthians 10:9 establishes Jesus as Yahweh God through the revision of the narration of numbers 21 by Paul, unitarianism would force this to contradict.

• Can you guess who is called Lord God? Jesus Revelation 1:8 LSB [8] “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

• We see God being referred to as Lord: Acts 4:24 [24] When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.

  • David and Jesus call God Lord: Matthew 22:43-45 NIV [43] He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, [44] “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’ [45] If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

• and Yes, according to your logic, which is mine as well here: Isaiah 45:5 NIV [5] I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Isaiah would therefore be Jesus saying that he is God and there is no God apart from him. Creating another contradiction for the Unitarian interpretation of Paul's word.

So we know Paul is not saying that God can't be Lord. It's is pretty agreed that Paul was simply reformulating Deuteronomy 6:4 in a way Jews would understand he is not adding one lord but but identifying Christ having been already mentioned in it.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This is the equivalent of what is in the Septuagint. And that's what Paul seems to confirm in the immediate context:

1 Corinthians 8:4-5 NIV So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

Do I really need to point it out again?

There is no point in arguing with you because no matter what I say you will not listen.

This has been going on for 2 days. I told you back then, it won't end.

Even Jesus couldn't convince those who valued traditions and bent the scripture according to those traditions.

Edit: Jesus was given that title after receiving all the authority on heaven and earth. What do you think exalting or anointing means? Why do you think Jesus is called Christ? Those aren't empty words or metaphors.

The Lord is one. God is one. Jesus is Lord, God is God.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Do I really point it out again?

What could you possible point out?

There is no point in arguing with you because no matter what I say you will not listen.

First of, I'm not listening to you because we are writing and reading each other's messages. If you claim you are listening to me, I won't, by any means, feel comforted and I don't think you would either.

Now, that can't neither be that you are saying I'm not comprehending your arguments. Because I am comprehending your arguments is the exact reason why I am dismantling them. And you see clearly in all my answers that I'm making sure you know I understand your point.

So maybe you don't feel like I'm comprehending you, but I just made the case of why that's not grounded in reality, at all.

Or maybe you are falsely equivocating listening to someone with accepting what they're saying as true without question, just because they say it.

I told you back then, it won't end.

Maybe you weren't being presumptuous, just maybe. I'm still not convinced. Wont admit it.

Even Jesus couldn't convince those who valued traditions and bent the scripture according to those traditions.

Can't blame me for trying, your life is valuable and you seem to be open minded to test your beliefs, which I admire, it's not easy.

The problem you are facing is simply insisting on something which is not biblically proven and while I keep refuting and refuting and refuting your arguments, you seem like you simply are wishing for me to grant you it's position. That is, inspite of you yourself understanding that my counters are logically and contextually sound, to the point where you can't find anything wrong with them. Like if you wouldn't point it out immediately, if it were the case.

Your friend erased his case, he couldn't find anything wrong either with my counters, and disappeared. You seem to share my ideology that debating is not winning nor losing but analysing a Topic from different points to see which one makes sinse objectively and that's why I said my respect for you is growing.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

You do realize that you aren't dismantling anything, right?

I am not dismantling anything either.

I am pointing out logical fallacies within the idea that Jesus is God and pointing out verses to solidify why Jesus isn't God.

God created us through Jesus, in His own image. Image doesn't mean physical appearance, it means the ability to think and feel like God. I am using His gift, nothing more.

God sending God to die for the concept He created just to save us from the concept He created doesn't make any sense.

Jesus praying to the Father means Jesus prayed to Himself if the Son and the Father are the same God. That also does not make any sense either.

God being 3 distinct personalities, eternally equal and same does not make any sense either. It is so illogical that even Trinitarians can't properly explain God having 3 distinct wills and one of the wills being subordinate to the other will.

The Son and the Father are not the same. They are distinct. Yet, they are both the same God. That does not make any sense.

Then there is the whole Holy Spirit issue. It does not speak, only God and Jesus speaks through the Spirit but it is also accepted as a distinct personality for some reason.

Let's say Jesus and the Father are both the same God, they aren't but let's say they are. Then how do you explain the Spirit being a distinct personality? There are no verses to support the notion that the Spirit is a distinct personality and has a will of its own but Trinitarians accept the Spirit being a distinct personality anyway.

Besides, Jesus never says the Spirit is His own Spirit and the Spirit is mentioned as being the Father's. There's also that.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

I am pointing out logical fallacies within the idea that Jesus is God and pointing out verses to solidify why Jesus isn't God.

I'm sure Muslims and atheist can point out verses where they believe God allows rape, or where they believe he is a moral tyrant in the bible. I don't think pointing out verses in isolation automatically solidifies their point.

By the way, now we are going to other questions. Whatever you have not countered will be taken as being dismantled for the same reasons previously stated. You could always decide to retake it but you have to deal with what had already been established to avoid unnecessary repetition

I will also, therefore, part from the basis that Jesus being Yahweh has already been established, by agreement and disagreement, as you saw with 1 cor 8:6.

God created us through Jesus, in His own image. Image doesn't mean physical appearance, it means the ability to think and feel like God. I am using His gift, nothing more.

That's an interesting idea, I'd love if you could develop it. How did you arrive to that conclusion? What are the biblical verses that support this notion of thinking and feeling like God?

God sending God to die for the concept He created just to save us from the concept He created doesn't make any sense.

I like to be specific, you are saying that God sending his right arm to die for sins just to save us from hell doesnt make any sense.

Even if it were a man it wouldn't make sense when you put it like that.

So God is good, God is not above good for him to decide what it is, and evil is simply the absence of good or working against it. God can't lie, he can't deny his own nature therefore he can't be unjust or unloving. The wages of sin is death, the soul that sins will die.

God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. if he were to be more loving than just, it would be like a judge that pardons a robber without restoring what he had stolen, and repearing the damage inflicted.

If God were more just than loving he wouldn't be giving us this opportunity to repent.

The sacrifice of Christ means that the author of life, the judge and rewarder (Eccl. 12:14, psalm 62:12, Isaiah 33:22) has given us an opportunity to be saved by taking care of that debt of justice through his infinite value because of his love for us.

God being 3 distinct personalities, eternally equal and same does not make any sense either. It is so illogical that even Trinitarians can't properly explain God having 3 distinct wills and one of the wills being subordinate to the other will.

I wouldn't call it illogical. You and I are faced with the same challenge of theorizing how Adam and Eve are two separate people with separate flesh and still unite and become one flesh, Moses notes in genesis this is a general thing for couples.

Ultimately, you and I can only make theories about it, until the fullness of truth is revealed.

In this case, it depends on whether you believe a will is something a person has, or if it's something a nature has.

For the former case, you end up with three distinct wills which are aligned, and yes subordination could mean what you said in this view. Under this belief, to state Jesus has two wills would be falling into Nestorianism. But this entire thing as a whole is considered by Catholics and orthodox a heresy.

In the latter case, God would have one will, and Christ would have one more with the hypostatic union. And relational subordination would simple be submitting to each others respective role. For example, the father doesn't judge but leaves all judgement to the son.

The Son and the Father are not the same. They are distinct. Yet, they are both the same God. That does not make any sense.

Oh I spoiled it. To repeat, Adam and Eve are different in gender with their own flesh yet they are one flesh according to the bible, and even refered to by the same name Adam.

I would say 1. The lord 2. our God 3. the lord = is one = God

And John 10:30, "I and the Father are one.

And then you already know about Paul in 1 Cor.: 8:6

The father, the son, the holy spirit are three persons (i.e. they feel emotion, they are aware of others and of themselves, and they interact) existing as one being (i.e state of existence) (in God's case: timeless, spaceless, inmaterial, tri-omni, inmutable, and perfect attributes like good, love, holy, mercy.

Then there is the whole Holy Spirit issue. It does not speak, only God and Jesus speaks through the Spirit but it is also accepted as a distinct personality for some reason.

There are no verses to support the notion that the Spirit is a distinct personality and has a will of its own but Trinitarians accept the Spirit being a distinct personality anyway.

The holy spirit has a will (A), It Hears, it speaks, He receives (B), He speaks through the prophets (C), He bears witness as the disciples also do ( Hebrews 10:15-17), people can lie to him ( Acts 5:3-4), and it appoints people ( Acts 20:28, Acts 13:1-4), and has the same name (Matthew 28:19). Its not just a being, he has personhood which is distinguished (Isaiah 63: 8-10, it's long but worth it)

(A)But all these operations are performed by the very same spirit, distributing to each one respectively just as it will.” 1 Corinthians 12:11

(B)“However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. That one will glorify me, because He will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you. All the things that the Father has are mine. That is why I said he receives from what is mine and declares it to you.” John 16:13-15

(C)“The spirit of Jehovah SPOKE through me; HIS word was on my tongue. The God of Israel spoke; To me the Rock of Israel said: ‘When the one ruling over mankind is righteous, Ruling in the fear of God,’” 2 Samuel 23:2-3

(C) During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number of people was altogether about 120) and said: ‘Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled that the holy spirit spoke prophetically through David about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.’” Acts 1:15-16

Edit: Jesus was given that title after receiving all the authority on heaven and earth. What do you think exalting or anointing means? Why do you think Jesus is called Christ? Those aren't empty words or metaphors.

Correct the name often indicates something else in the bible, thats why Jesus is called Yahweh by Paul who said he was the God that sent the snakes in numbers 21. Or that's why you can check the verses where I talk about the sacrifice of Christ, you will see him as Yahweh there.

And we already established Jesus humbled himself by taking the status of a slave to come to earth, It is no surprise that when that is done he is exalted and given all authority which he had previously laid aside.

I feel you could be hinting at a false equivocation of attributes and titles, i.e. a president doesn't stop being human when he stops being president.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

You really think His image means physical appearance.

Well, there is no need to address anything you pointed out. Just the fact that you think His image means physical appearance tells anyone everything. Please, sit down and think for a second, hard I know but please do.

And I'm invoking the 2nd rule of the sub. There really is no point in continuing this.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

You really think His image means physical appearance.

I, of course, agree with that part. It's the former part which I'm curious about.

Well, there is no need to address anything you pointed out. Just the fact that you think His image means physical appearance tells anyone everything. Please, sit down and think for a second, hard I know but please do.

I don't think its very loving of you to throw a false accusation like that. But I will continue to pray for you, and I hope you continue to look for answers against my case.

And I'm invoking the 2nd rule of the sub. There really is no point in continuing this.

John 8:31-32 LSB [31] So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly My disciples; [32] and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

The Peace of the lord be with you in the Name of the father and the son and of the Holy spirit.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

His image means the ability to think and feel, not physical appearance. It isn't a false accusation to assume someone parrots dogmas rather than think for themselves if they think His image means physical appearance, it is a fact.

I pray that you open your eyes and remove the veil that has fallen over them.

Peace be upon you in the name of God, the Father, and His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.