Trinity.

[Paidion]

Yes, "sharers of the divine nature". Not "the exact imprint of His (the Father's) essence" as Jesus is (Heb 1:3). Jesus is the ONLY-begotten Son.
We can become one as the Father and the Son are one in the former sense, but not in the latter.

[jriccitelli]

Are you saying they ‘are’ One, or are you are saying they are one ‘in a sense’, or one ‘in purpose’.

The Trinity says they are One: One God, One Creator, One Savior, One Shepherd, One Rock, One Lord / Three persons One God / They are One in the same, and there are no others, are you saying that?

[Paidion]

Are you saying they ‘are’ One, or are you are saying they are one ‘in a sense’, or one ‘in purpose’.

As I indicated in my last post, the writer to the Hebrews said that the Son is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3).
This imprint took place when the Son was begotten as the first of God's acts. So the Father and the Son are essentially one.

1. This oneness DOES NOT imply that They are the same divine Individual. (as in Modalism)
2. This oneness DOES NOT imply that They are each part of a compound "God" (as in Trinitarianism)
3. This oneness DOES imply that They are equally divine. Indeed They are the only two Individual Persons in existence who are divine.

The Trinity says they are One: One God, One Creator, One Savior, One Shepherd, One Rock, One Lord / Three persons One God / They are One in the same, and there are no others, are you saying that?

No. I am not affirming the Trinity theory.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

Paidion, in your view, is there anything besides Jesus that is divine but not God?

Only Jesus and the Father are divine. Jesus is divine because He is the ONLY-begotten Son of God (not created). God begat no other Sons. For this reason Jesus can also be called "God". John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts call Him "the only-begotten God".

The Father is the unbegotten God—the only real God, as Jesus Himself affirmed (John 17:3). The only Son is of the same divine essence as the Father, and is in that sense "God". But He is not "God" either in the sense of being the unbegotten God, or in the sense of being part of the unbegotten God, or in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God in such a way that together they form a compound God.

[jriccitelli]

So if Jesus is not God in the sense of always existing.
And if Jesus is not God in the sense of being part of the unbegotten God.
And if Jesus is not God in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God.
Then how could Jesus be our Savior, Lord, King, etc. since scripture demands emphatically that God alone is Holy, Good, Savior, Lord, King, etc.?

Even ‘if’ Jesus was brought into existence as you say, why couldn’t you accept that He is 'now' The True God, part of God, and fully united with God, so as to be The True One God?

If Jesus is not part of and united with God, then it seems like Jesus was not even truly ‘from’ God (I am human because I came from my father). There are many humans from humans, but God says there is Only One God, thus anything truly 'from' God is God. So it seems you have Jesus created, or coming ‘from’ something other than God. And thus your Jesus is something other than God, yet he is your lord and savior is that right?

[Paidion]

So if Jesus is not God in the sense of always existing. STRAWMAN
And if Jesus is not God in the sense of being part of the unbegotten God.
And if Jesus is not God in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God. STRAWMAN
...

I have never affirmed the first "if", and the third "if" is incomplete and therefore misleading.

[jriccitelli]

You listed three senses in which Jesus is not God:

1. He is not "God" either in the sense of being the unbegotten God
2. or in the sense of being part of the unbegotten God,
3. or in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God…

1. It is ‘your’ definition of begotten that affirms Jesus did not always exist.
2. If Jesus is ‘not’ part of God as you say, then he is not God in ‘any’ sense at all.
3. I copied your quote exactly, I figured we can all read your quote. I don’t see how the end of your sentence changes anything:

“But He is not "God"… in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God in such a way that together they form a compound God” (Paidion, above)

He either is God or He is not. There is no biblical sense of anything being like God. God has told us there is nothing like God but God. If Jesus is not God he is a false divinity parading as a god (much like a strawman if you don't mind the pun). God showed no tolerance at all for anything being made or likened to His image, that would include all angels and divinities, real or not.

And you still have the problem of how Jesus can be called Lord, Savior, King, Word of God etc. and yet not be God.

[Paidion]

1. He is not "God" either in the sense of being the unbegotten God
2. or in the sense of being part of the unbegotten God,
3. or in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God…

1. It is ‘your’ definition of begotten that affirms Jesus did not always exist.
2. If Jesus is ‘not’ part of God as you say, then he is not God in ‘any’ sense at all.
3. I copied your quote exactly, I figured we can all read your quote. I don’t see how the end of your sentence changes anything:

1. My definition of "begotten" is the standard definition of "begotten". How does it "affirm" that Jesus did not always exist? Or do you think that the begetting of Jesus as a single act before all ages implies that "there was a time at which the Son did not exist" as Arius affirmed in his letter to Eusebius? Many times I have explained that the act of the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time, and thus there was no time at which the Son did not exist. Have you not read that explanation?

2. In any sense at all? On what basis do you make this statement? It's like saying that if you are not a part of your father, then you are not a human being in any sense at all.

3. No you did not copy my quote exactly. The quote was:
" or in the sense of being united to the unbegotten God in such a way that together they form a compound God."
Obviously you recognized that you hadn't really believed that you copied my quote exactly, since this time you added "..." to indicate that it was an incomplete quote. Initially, your "exact quote" ended in a period. Another strong piece of evidence that you know you didn't "copy my quote exactly" is that you now say, "I don’t see how the end of your sentence changes anything."

Yes, I am sure you don't see how the end of the sentence makes any difference. The reason seems to be that you do not see how the Father and the Son could be united in any way except to form a compound God. But there IS another way. Jesus prayed that his disciples might become one and He and the Father are one. Would that mean that they would become one compound piece of humanity (or maybe deity)? I don't think so. Rather they would become united in character, intention, purpose, etc. in which way the Father and the Son have always been united. So it seems to be either a lack of understanding on your part, or a work of deception to omit the ending of my sentence and so give the readers the impression that I disbelieve that Jesus is united to the unbegotten God.

[Paidion]

And you still have the problem of how Jesus can be called Lord, Savior, King, Word of God etc. and yet not be God.

I have no problem whatever in this regard.
That is because I believe He IS "God" in the sense of being the only-begotten God (John 1:18) in virtue of having been begotten by "the only real (or "true" if you prefer) God" (the Father)

I have no problem in affirming that Jesus is not Himself "the only real God" since He Himself in his prayer indicated that He is not, but that only the Father is. (John 17:3)

I have no problem in affirming that Jesus is not "God" in the sense of being part of a compound "God" since there is no scriptural affirmation of such a concept.