MS

The modern UU church did not invent Unitarianism. The name belonged to Christians who believed in the One God of Scripture and the Messiah He sent. Biblical Unitarians are reclaiming the name.

The Temptations of the Trinitarian God-Man, Jesus

@ZoneChaos How did Jesus perform miracles? How could a simple human redeem mankind?

Kenosis.... it is Him setting aside the privileges that were His in heaven. When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a slave. In doing so, He became bound to the imperfections of His Human nature.

How is this a problem for the trinity?

@ZoneChaos What do you mean “emptied himself”? Because of what “Jesus had a Father, who is God”?

While in earth.. The Son of God, who was born Jesus Christ, voluntarily emptied himself of His Divine nature. (Philippians 2:7) Because of this... Jesus was limited in His knowledge. Because of this, He could be tempted, and had the ability and had to face the weakness of humanity to be tempted. Because of this, Jesus had a Father, who is God.

@ZoneChaos You don’t even understand the trinity. It’s a mystery!

@RevesJM None of these 39 points so far have amounted to anything but either a misunderstanding of scripture or the Trinity Doctrine and have actually shown nothing to discredit the Trinity Position, nor show any contradiction. All it has done is show the OP's ignorance.

Problems for the trinity that trinitarians claim are “not problems”. Day 39.

@ZoneChaos You can make anything fit your presumptions. Jesus knows and doesn’t know. Jesus is tempted and also not really tempted. Jesus can have a God and also be God. (Of course! He wouldn’t be an atheist, duh!)

@RevesJM It Isn't.

This is why you can trust Jesus.

Good news. Jesus wasn’t really tempted in Matthew 4. It was more like a test. But it was only his human nature being tested. His divine nature kept him sinless so there was no fear of him following the one called the πειράζω, or “the TEMPTER”.

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd Because the question was about the early Christian’s. I spoke specifically on the “earliest”. Our sources for the “earliest” views of Christians are found in the Bible. You think going to the 3rd or 4th century is more helpful?

@RevesJM @xcnikahd Brother, you are limiting the sources to the Bible. And THEN you are arbitrarily limiting the scope to "whether or not Jesus is the same nature of The Father". I would cite John 10, but that's uncessary here, why are you limiting to the scope of early Christian debate?

Imagine being this philosophically and theologically illiterate. The unitarians are not sending their best.

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd Example?

@RevesJM @xcnikahd The context doesn't help you. Firstly, you say there is "Nothing in The Bible about nature of God". You then said the Bible doesn't mention it therefore there wasnt. Which is historically untrue using historically modeling and other contemporary sources.

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd Which verse shows or alludes to the debate?

@RevesJM @xcnikahd 3. "God is spirit, no debate." You described God's nature using scripture, hence, God's nature is described in scripture. And God's nature includes more than just his immateriality.

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd The earliest Christian’s did not debate it is what I’ve said and stand by. Which verses are you thinking of where Christians discuss whether Jesus shares the same nature as the Father?

@RevesJM @xcnikahd Brother in humanity, this is shifting the goalpost. You just said it wasn't debated, now you're saying it doesn't matter because it's not "the same teaching of the earliest Christians."

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd You might enjoy this x.com/revesjm/status…

@RevesJM @xcnikahd And btw about those fringe groups. The Two Powers in Heaven being the binitarian model is speculated by Jewish historians to PRE-DATE Christian thought. Binitariansm, and subsequently Trinitarianism, were only considered official heresies in Judaism around 100AD

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd Fringe groups speculating about God is not the same as the teaching of the earliest Christians. In the NT, God is consistently the Father, and Jesus is the one God raised, sent and exalted.

@RevesJM @xcnikahd Some early groups argued God's nature was multipersonal, such as the early Two Powers Jews. Some early groups thought YHWH was a demon and the God of the NT was separate. Some thought YHWH was an evil creator. All this debates on God's nature.

@Jonloe9 @xcnikahd Context is everything. The question was whether early Christian’s agreed about God’s nature. My answer is sufficient. I could have been more precise which is why I pointed out that God is a spirit. There was no debate by the earliest Christian’s about God’s nature.

@xcnikahd "God's nature is not in scripture!" "Btw God is spirit". [A description of God's nature] The fact that he didn't notice that's a contradiction is testimony to this foolishness.

@MooreMark25706 You’re changing the category. James describes what God is by nature. Not what God intends to happen. If Jesus can be tempted but God cannot, they aren’t the same.

@RevesJM My last was from Strong's Online Concordance. They said it can mean either and context decides, not me. The Spirit sent Him to be *whatever it was* so if God can't tempt anyone it could not have been, from God's perspective, a temptation. He intended the Son to pass, not fail.

Problems for the trinity that trinitarians claim are “not problems”. Day 38.

@Jonloe9 @darknytPB What does the Bible say about Jesus? Matthew 4:1 says he was tempted. Hebrews 4:15 says he was tempted in every way, just like us. So for you, he wasn’t really tempted, they just tried to tempt him?

@RevesJM @darknytPB Ehem. Can you lie to God, even though God is all knowing? You seemed to run past the main point to then gish gallop several other weak arguments. Stick to your main argument Reves. Does someone tempting you mean you have been tempted? Or even mean you could be tempted?

@MooreMark25706 You can call it a test, but the test was an attempt to get Jesus to do evil. James says God cannot be tempted by evil. That’s a problem for one who is “fully God”.

As tests. The Greek word can mean either one. The intent of the tester is the context that let's the reader know which sense of the word is meant. 3985 (peirazō) means "tempt" ("negative sense") in: Mt 16:1, 19:3, 22:18,35; Mk 8:11, 10:2, 12:15; Lk 11:16, 20:33; Jn 8:6; Js 1:13,14. 3985 (peirazō) however is used of positive tests in: Mt 4:11; Lk 22:28; 1 Cor 10:13; Js 1:12. The Devil meant it in a negative sense, but the Holy Spirit meant it in a positive sense.