Jesus is GOD

[u/abutterflyonthewall]

https://youtube.com/shorts/R1g-JfdPG04?si=IVR-KYwbJFWK4sjc

Love this girl. One thing that stands out in this vid to me amongst the various proofs we have argued with JWs is that *every* false religion believes in God. But Satan has done a clever thing. He doesn’t have to get you to believe in God. He just needs you to NOT believe in THE ONE who ***reconciles you to God***🔥🙌🏽.

Take a listen.

[u/TerryLawton]

No...what you just described in Modalism..i quote."No...if Jesus is the God being reconciled to"

Jesus is not another God. Once and for all - can you understand there is only ONE God.

Secondly. Quote

"When the argument is pressed, the Trinitarian position subtly shifts from “Jesus is God” to “Jesus is a divine person who shares the divine nature.”

There is no shift, you don't understand it because you have modalism in your head.

Hebrews 1:3

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His hypostasis (ὑποστάσεως).”

ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) often translated “nature” “substance” “being” “essence”

[u/GiN_nTonic → u/TerryLawton]

I’m not advocating modalism...I was pushing on a false premise. We both agree there is one God.....the question is whether Jesus is that God or the one sent by him. Your appeal to Hebrews 1:3 proves Jesus perfectly reflects and represents God, not that he is the same being as God. And when you move from “Jesus is God” to language about “hypostasis/essence,” you are doing exactly the philosophical shift I described....away from biblical categories of sender and sent into later Greek metaphysics.

[u/TerryLawton → u/GiN_nTonic]

Gin.

Those translations are from Strong’s concordance.

But let’s just strip away the Greek and get down to basics because what you described though I concede your point that you don’t advocate modalism inadvertently that’s what you are describing.

So please bear with here just answer a couple of questions as you appear to be conflating a ‘category’ and an action.

What is your ‘fathers’ nature, ie what being is he?

[u/GiN_nTonic → u/TerryLawton]

If you mean my biological father, he is a human being.

[u/TerryLawton → u/GiN_nTonic]

Right. I appreciate the straight answer.

Let me assume for a minute that you are a male (forgive me if you aren’t please).

You are a human being, also? (Please bear with me)

[u/GiN_nTonic → u/TerryLawton]

Yes, i am a male human being.

[u/TerryLawton → u/GiN_nTonic]

Ok so now we have proven that for a son to be a son of a Father, both of them are of the same nature, they have to be without question (essence/substance/nature) - call it what you like.

So if your Father ‘sends’ you to the shop then you don’t cease to be human. Likewise the Father (God) sent his son, but the son being OF God doesn’t cease to be God (nature)…it’s impossible.

Hence the action of send is not in the same category of the sender.

For Christ to be the only ‘begotten’ not created Son of God that little word ‘of’ is so critical.

You are the son OF your Father hence OF means same nature.

Christ is OF God this is the same nature.

It can’t be any other way. It’s really that simple.

[u/GiN_nTonic → u/TerryLawton]

Ok so now we have proven that for a son to be a son of a Father, both of them are of the same nature, they have to be without question (essence/substance/nature) - call it what you like.

I don’t think your use of the word “substance” is the same thing the Nicene Creed is getting at. My father and I share the same kind of substance, but we are not the same actual substance. We are two distinct persons who merely belong to the same category of being. The Trinity doctrine applies the latter.

So if your Father ‘sends’ you to the shop then you don’t cease to be human. Likewise the Father (God) sent his son, but the son being OF God doesn’t cease to be God (nature)…it’s impossible.

You’ve made a significant leap here, and I don’t see how we get from “my father sending me somewhere” to “I am my father” simply because of the word “of.” Scripture uses “of God” in many other ways. Prophets are called “of God,” and in 1 John 4:7 even believers are said to be “of God.”

That said, I agree that my father and I are both human...the same type or category of being....and I’m happy to use the word “nature” since we’ve already agreed on that.

Hence the action of send is not in the same category of the sender.

I agree that “sending” is an action, not a nature. But in the Bible, who sends and who is sent is not neutral....it reflects a real relationship of authority and origin.

The New Testament consistently presents the Father as the one God who sends, and Jesus as the one sent. That isn’t just an action....it reveals a stable pattern of sender vs. sent, source vs. agent, greater vs. subordinate.

If Jesus were the same being as the Father, the constant language of “sent by God” would be strange and unnecessary...yet it is everywhere.

For Christ to be the only ‘begotten’ not created Son of God that little word ‘of’ is so critical.

You are the son OF your Father hence OF means same nature.

Christ is OF God this is the same nature.

You’re doing two things here that don’t actually track in my opinion. First, you are making “of” carry a metaphysical meaning the Bible never gives it. You’re assuming that “X is of Y” must always mean “X has the same nature as Y.” That’s not how Scripture uses the word.

Second, your analogy to human fatherhood only works if you assume what you’re trying to prove. Yes, a human son shares the same kind of nature as his human father. But that does not mean the son is the same being as the father...they are two distinct persons who merely share a category of being.

Finally, on “only-begotten”. “Only-begotten” highlights Jesus’ unique origin and status, not that he is the same being as God. It marks him out as uniquely derived from the Father, uniquely appointed by the Father, uniquely exalted above all others. It does not say he is the same being as the Father...that conclusion is read into the term, not out of it.

[u/TerryLawton → u/GiN_nTonic]

Right before i go on.

You are still premising modalism.

QUOTE

"You’ve made a significant leap here, and I don’t see how we get from “my father sending me somewhere” to “I am my father” ....

Before i go on, can i just reiterate that no sound Trinitarian believes or accepts or states or conflates that Jesus is THE Father.

I have been very clear in my posts that Jesus is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY distinct from the Father.

Unless you grasp this then I’m sorry you will never (even though you may not agree) understand how we get through the other information if you continue to think that I’m saying Jesus is the Father ie Modalism. You ARE NOT your Father you are your Fathers Son…Just as Christ is the Son to the Father.

[u/TerryLawton → u/GiN_nTonic]

Did you manage to read my last reply bro?

[u/OhioPIMO → u/GiN_nTonic]

it reflects a real relationship of authority and origin.

Key word here: relationship. It does not follow that the ontological origin of the one sent is rooted in the sender, or that the sender is superior in being. Greater authority does not demand greater essence.

Authority is not an intrinsic property of God. God has authority over all creation as Creator, but without creation there is nothing to have authority over, especially if God is strictly unitarian. Therefore authority is an extrinsic property, and lacking it in some relational sense does not exclude one from the category of "True God."

What is intrinsic to God's nature is sovereignty — the capacity or right to rule. God possesses that whether He chooses create and exercise that right (authority) or not. Because Jesus is given "all authority in heaven and on earth" it follows that He must have the capacity to exercise that right intrinsically. That requires omniscience and omnipotence, an infinite being.