The NT is filled with more evidence that God is ONE and there is ALSO a Son who himself HAS a God. Both positions have challenges - but you seem to be just as unwilling to see as you claim I am. For example, you think it's a slam dunk that calling God his own father "MADE HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD" as if it says "CLAIMING THAT HE HIMSELF WAS THAT GOD." But, that is not what it says, and so it has to be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture and in particular the main gist of that passage and the book in which it exists which is primarily concerned with Jesus being the Messiah, not being divine. Others raised the dead and performed miracles through the power of the Spirit. That did not make them God.dwight92070 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:06 amThis is a clear example of not wanting to see the evidence that is right in front of you. The author knew exactly what Jesus was doing and saying. Verse 18 says He was calling God His own Father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD. He had the prerogative to work on the Sabbath as His Father did (verse 18), He had the power and authority to do the works of the Father (verses 19-20), He could raise the dead, just as the Father raises the dead (verse 21), He could life "to whom He wishes" (verse 21) -life can ONLY come from God, there's no other source for life, and He was given the authority to judge ALL (verse 22) - there is no ultimate Judge but God.
This is why you don't accept that Jesus is God - not because there is not ABUNDANT evidence, but because you don't want to see it. The New Testament is FILLED with evidence.
Acts 20:28 "... to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His OWN blood." Whose blood? God's blood. When did God shed His blood? On
Calvalry.
Even simple math shows us that Jesus is God:
If A=C and B=C, then A=B.
If God is our Savior (Titus 2:10; 3:4) and Christ Jesus is our Savior (Titus 2:13; 3:6), then God = Christ Jesus. There is only ONE SAVIOR - Isaiah 43:11
If A = C and B = C , then A = B
This is so simple that even a child can get it. But then, we have to come to God as a little child.
Dwight
Even Acts 20:28 reads not "of God" in many manuscripts, but "of the Lord" and others say blood "of the Son." Besides, even "his own blood" referencing "God" could well be a figure of speech just as we might use it - his son would be of his blood in a figure of speech.
The point is there is a lot of ambiguity in many of these passages and the ones most heavily relied on either have reasonable alternative meanings or have serious manuscript or translation problems. That's where your blindness is showing. That's not to say the truth your blind to is Jesus not being God (that could well be true) but that your passages and positions aren't as compelling as you think they are and alternative views are at least equally reasonable if not true. History and tradition mean little to me in light of how corrupt most of the relevant history was and how messy it was with so many throughout church history believing otherwise notwithstanding the whitewash church history tends to give to it.
Your simple math forgets that this syllogism only works if it can't be said that A=C in one sense but B=C in another sense. That is true for a great many things and is apparent even to a little child. Also, the principle of identity which you reference would suggest that A also can't be D while B isn't D. Jesus is a man - God isn't a man.