In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

### Background Hebrews 7:3 makes the following startling statement about a character called "Melchizedek": > Without father, without mother, without genealogy, **having neither beginning of days nor end of life**, but resembling the Son of God, he [Melchizedek] remains a priest forever Having no beginning nor end sounds similar to language the Bible uses about God: > Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the whole world, **from everlasting to everlasting** You are God. *Psalms 90:2* The author of Hebrews also compares him to the "Son of God". ### Question Do any Christians believe that since Melchizedek has no beginning nor end that he is a divine being in some way? If so, do any Christians worship him?

In [John 17:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&version=NIV) it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father. Also, in [Matthew 4:10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10;&version=NIV;) , Jesus himself says to: > ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’` What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?

There appears to be some discussion about the name of Jesus of Nazareth in that some are suggesting the proper way to refer to him would be by the name/title '*Yeshua*'. I am interested in the reason for this and would be grateful for some references to those who argue for it. Below, I list out the reason why this appears to be about the Deity of Christ. Please note, I am not wishing to enter into discussion or to hear people's thoughts on the matter. My objective is to see references to the argument for so doing, citing the words of those who suggest that this should be done. -------------------------------------------- In Acts 7:45 and in Hebrews 4:8 we see a person named who, in context, is the man who accompanied Moses in the wilderness, commonly called, in English, 'Joshua'. The Greek of these two texts reads '*Iesous*' or, as we say in English 'Jesus'. This person was called Oshea at birth and was later re-named by Moses, Numbers 13:16, 'Jehoshua' which is two Hebrew words attached together, *Jehovah* and *yeshua*, God and salvation. As such, he is named again 'Jehoshua' in the historical chronicle, 1 Chronicles 7:27. Commonly, he was called 'Joshua'. ------------------------------------------ The first use of the word '*yeshua*' in Genesis 49:18 is when, amidst his blessing his twelve sons before his departure from this life, Israel (Jacob) cries out : >I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord [KJV] I have waited for thy *yeshua*, O *Jehovah*. ------------------------------------ So, when the angel, Gabriel (who stands in the presence of God) states to Mary : >Thou shalt call his name 'Jesus' for he shall save his people from their sins [Matthew 1:21 KJV] why is it that some people wish me to use the word '*Yeshua*' (which means 'salvation') rather than the word 'Jesus' which comes from the wording 'Jehoshua' (Jehovah plus salvation). Thus the word 'Yeshua' loses the reference to 'Jehovah'. Is this the reason that it is being done : to remove the reference to 'Jehovah' from the name 'Jesus' ? --------------------------- Again, I must ask not for personal opinions as to what is right, but I am seeking references as to why those who do this, propagate the concept.

**The argument** 1. If X saves, X must be God. 2. Jesus saves. 3. Therefore, Jesus must be God. **Question** According to Biblical Unitarians, what's wrong with this argument? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91343/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91318/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83087/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81155/50422

According to Julian the Apostate's *Against the Galileans*, no apostle claimed that Jesus was God until John, and they probably only did so to clarify an important dispute within a disunited church, stating: > "At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God." Given that the writings of Julian the Apostate on this matter survive only because he was quoted by the early Christian church fathers in their works so that they can refute him, how did the early Christian church fathers refute this particular argument of John the Apostate?

Jehovah's Witnesses, as one example of a group who denies that Jesus is God, claim that Revelation 22:13 is a reference to Jehovah God and not Jesus: > I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”  It is spoken to John by an angel and not directly by either Jehovah God or Jesus (Rev. 22:8) Revelation 22:6 says that **God sent this angel** to John: > And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”  The "he" in the above verse is the angel from verse 22:1 and 8: > Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb - v.1 > > I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me - v.8 Later in verse 22:16 Jesus himself confirms to be the one who sent the angel: > “**I, Jesus, have sent my angel** to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” What exegetical proof is there that the Alpha and Omega statement of verse 13 is not applied equally to both Jehovah God and Jesus since **both sent the same angel in the same instance** to proclaim it? Or put another way, how can this be reconciled with the non-trinitarian belief that Jesus is not God? 

It is my opinion that the demand or challenge to point to explicit deity claims by Jesus in the Bible began in very recent times—possibly not until the 20th century, by groups that denied his deity. If this challenge didn't begin in the last century, then it definitely must have gained popularity recently because it seems to have become a focal point among recent Christian apologists. Is there any evidence for such a trend at any particular time or place, such as in the United States in the 20th century?

John 2:18-22 says: > 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV) The temple is the place where God's presence dwelled, see Exodus 25:8: > 8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. If Jesus' body is the temple, in what sense does God dwell in the temple according to Biblical Unitarians?

The NWT explicitly states in John 1:1 that Jesus Christ is "a god," yet Colossians 2:9 states, "For (or because) in Him all the fulness of Deity/Godhead dwells in bodily form." This is backed up by Colossians 1:19, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him." "Godhead" is defined in Strongs Lexicon: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2320/kjv/tr/0-1/ In Greek, the word is "theotes" and Strongs #G2320. So how do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile their claim that Jesus Christ is "a god" with the Greek meaning that Jesus Christ is actually God in nature or essence?

God is 1. I think we can all agree with Jesus' most important commandment... the Shema. I've been told here by the most prudent of Trinitarians, that YHWH is not a being or a person, but instead 3 persons sharing the 1 divine essence/nature. If this is the Truth, then that which is of the quantity 1 must be the non personified divine essence/nature. (Not my belief but taken from top voted answers to my previous questions) We are told in scripture that after our resurrection, we too will share in the same nature as our master, Jesus Christ, for we will be like him. He is the first of many. 2 Peter 1:4. > ...by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these **you may be partakers of the divine nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Eph 3 >14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; ***you may be filled with all the fullness of God.*** 1 John 3:2 >Beloved, *now we are children of God*; and it has not yet been revealed what *we shall be*, but we know that when He is revealed, **we shall be like Him**, for we shall see Him as He is. Romans 8 > 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the **firstborn among many brethren**. John 1 > 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right *to become children of God*, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, **but of God.** This progression of reason easily leads one to the the next questions. According to Trinitarians: 1. ***What is the difference (if any) between the final ontologies of the Preeminent son of God and the rest of the children of God?*** (Please support your answer with scripture.) 2. ***If no difference exists.... Will all the glorified children of God be the 1 YHWH; the 1 non-personified deity comprised of all persons who share in this unique divine nature?***

I've seen the uncreated God contrasted many times to the created angels, Satan, and humans, and etc. Being created is counted against the latter category as a mark of imperfection which God does not bear. However I don't really see why being created is an imperfection. Surely something can be created and be created perfectly, right? To become perfect? Is there a way to understand this through the bigger picture of what perfection is? Or is this something that must be understood on its own?

I am fully aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah and Jesus are separate beings. However their translation of John 1:1 says that "the word (logos) was a god. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow that Jesus is indeed rightly called divine though not equal to Almighty God?

I'm aware someone asked this question already, but they no longer have an account, the post has no answers, and I'm hopefully going to reformulate the question in a way that hopefully explicates the objection more. Mark 1:1-5 states (verse numbers removed): >The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” - “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark's quotation is seemingly a conglomeration of a few Old Testament passages, but of the passages he does use from Isaiah and Malachi that are relevant, they both say essentially the same thing. Malachi 3:1 (Emphasis added and verse numbers removed): >“Behold, **I** will send **My messenger**, who will prepare the way before **Me**. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly **come to His temple**—the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight—see, He is coming,” says the LORD of Hosts. So in Mark 1 we are introduced to two figures, Jesus, and John the Baptist. In Malachi, we are introduced to two figures, God, and the messenger, who will prepare the way before God. Notice that immediately after describing a messenger who will come and prepare the way, Mark launches into his description of the ministry of John the Baptist. Since we know that John the Baptist's purpose was to bring in Jesus' ministry, that means that John the Baptist is the messenger making the path straight for the Lord, Jesus. But that means Jesus must be God. To break this down into a syllogism: 1. The Old Testament speaks of a messenger preparing the way for God to meet his people. 2. Mark identifies this messenger as John the Baptist. 3. John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus to make his people. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God as described in the Old Testament.

In a previous [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82708/is-there-any-historical-evidence-of-early-church-christians-denying-the-divinity/) in which I asked for evidence of early Christians denying the divinity of Jesus, a user posted an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83086/50422) that, among other things, presents sixteen very interesting syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus. The arguments are very simple and easy to read, so I thought that it would be a good idea to ask a single question introducing the sixteen arguments and let trinitarians respond to them (in a rational manner, of course). Are there any flaws in these arguments that should make us question their validity and/or soundness? The sixteen arguments are listed below: ### Argument #1 1. The Father is the only true God *(John 17:1,3)* 2. Jesus is not the Father *(John 17:1,3)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not the true God ### Argument #2 1. There is no God besides the Father *(Isa. 64:8,4)* 2. Jesus is not the Father *(borrowed from previous argument, and generally accepted)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #3 1. Man is not God *(Ezek. 28:2)* 2. Jesus is man *(John 8:40)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #4 1. God is spirit *(John 4:24)* 2. Jesus is not a spirit *(Luke 24:39)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #5 1. God never wearies *(Isa. 40:28)* 2. Jesus was weary *(John 4:6)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #6 1. God never sleeps *(Ps. 121:3-4)* 2. Jesus slept *(Matt. 8:24)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #7 1. God never dies *(I Tim. 1:17)* 2. Jesus died *(Mark 15:37)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #8 1. God knows everything *(I John 3:20)* 2. Jesus does not know everything *(Mark 13:26, 32)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #9 1. God would not acknowledge another as God *(Isa. 46:9)* 2. Jesus acknowledges the Father as God *(John 20:17)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #10 1. God has **natural (inherent)** authority *(Job 34:13)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** authority *(Matt. 28:18)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #11 1. God has **natural** holiness *(Lev. 19:2)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** holiness *(John 10:36)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #12 1. God has **natural** lordship *(Ps. 100:3)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** lordship *(Acts 2:36)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #13 1. God has **natural** power *(Gen. 17:1)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** power *(Acts 10:38)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #14 1. God has **natural** judgeship *(Gen. 18:25)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** judgeship *(Acts 10:42)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #15 1. God has **natural** saviorhood *(Isa. 45:21)* 2. Jesus has **acquired** saviorhood *(Acts 5:31)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God ### Argument #16 1. God is **OVER ALL** *(I Cor. 15:27-28)* 2. Jesus is **UNDER** God *(I Cor. 15:27-28)* 3. Therefore, Jesus is not God

1. If X saves, X must be God. 2. Jesus saves. 3. Therefore, Jesus must be God. All the trinitarian books / articles / sermons I’ve ever come across have never attempted such a simplistic way of reasoning about the deity of Christ. Indeed, to even be logical, it must first show how God’s salvation (in #1) must be a salvation that only God is capable of (not any old salvation from any old thing) and that what Jesus saves from (in #2) is exactly this same thing God saves from. And if it did that, then the case would be strengthened for Jesus being God. But the bare bones of this argument – without fleshing them out – are illogical, which is why no trinitarian would present that alone as a logical argument. **If any trinitarian here has ever seen that argument presented, could they please cite the source and detail any accompanying reasoning?** **If your answer would be “No, I haven’t”, then could you explain what would be needed to flesh this out to make a logical case for the deity of Christ?**

Christians have understood Psalm 2:7 as a reference to Jesus as the begotten Son of God. But how could this be if Psalm 2 is God speaking to the King of Israel? The response is typically that this verse refers to the Messiah *as well* as the King. But there are two questions that come to mind in regard to this answer: 1. How can this text be used to show that is Jesus unique in his sonship if it also applies to the King? 2. Hebrews 1:5 applies Psalm 2 to Jesus in order to establish Jesus' superiority over the angels. But wouldn't this also prove the King's superiority over the angels as well?

We read in John 5:2-6 (KJV): > Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and **learned** that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” Even before approaching the pool, Jesus would have known that the paralytic person had been lying there for 38 years. But the Evangelist writes that Jesus "learned" of it, that is, either he asked the onlookers, or was told by the man himself of his plight. But in the given form, John 5:6 suggests that Jesus continued to top up his knowledge in the capacity of a human being. My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, what does John 5:6 tell of the "fully human" nature of Jesus ?

We read in Mtt 4:1-4, of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness : > Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Here, we see the Devil using calculated words, i.e. "IF you are the Son of God......"In other words, the Devil was asking Jesus to disclose his divinity, as if he was not sure of whom he was tempting. Elsewhere, we see Jesus forbidding his own disciples from telling others that he is the Messiah ( Mtt 16:20; Mk 8:30). That said, the Devil was presumably tempting Jesus to disclose his divinity much before the appointed time. But, the motifs of the First Temptation we have, are of stone and bread . My question therefore, is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the First Temptation of Christ basically about ?

I've seen multiple times (biblical) unitarians claim that being divine does not imply being God, and that we can view Jesus as divine (i.e. as having divine attributes) without being "God" with a capital G. This makes me wonder: for biblical unitarians, are there divine attributes that only the Father has but Jesus doesn't? ___ ***A suggestion**: for a very complete answer, I would suggest something like a comparison table with 3 columns: "Divine Attribute", "Father" and "Son". Under "Divine Attribute" I would list several divine attributes, such as "eternal", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnipresent", etc. And under "Father" and "Son" I would list biblical passages that give evidence of whether the Father and the Son possess/lack these divine attributes, respectively. But this is just a suggestion, so feel free to answer as you see fit.*