Jehovah's Witnesses and the Trinity Part 1

[SiNcE_1985]

.

No excuses, Jesus is God.

We are gonna deal with these Trinity-Proof texts, one by one....using Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) own New World's Translation, while I use the New King James Version (NKJV)...and we are gonna expose their faulty NWT, as needed.

For this thread, we will examine the following three books and verses..

Isa 40:3 – Mark 1:1-8 – Malachi 3:1

Lets begin with Isa 40:3..

Isa 40:3
NKJV Isa 40:3 ”The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
NWT Isa 40:3 A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up* the way of Jehovah! Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

Now, as you can see, in comparison, both the NKJV and the NWT reads the same.

It is commanded that a clear path is made for God (Lord, Jehovah), because he is coming through!!

Ok, now, lets look at Malachi 3:1..

NKJV Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts.

NWT Mal 3:1  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up* a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Virtually the same message, the Lord is coming...and the path is being cleared for him.

The significance? This is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus....and this messenger who clears the path for him, is John the Baptist.

How do we know?

Because, in Mark 1:1-8...

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in [a]the Prophets:

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’ ”

4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The implication is simple, Jesus is God.

Even in JW's own NWT Bible, it is said that the path (Isa 40:3) is being made clear for Jehovah/God.

The author of Mark connects the subject of the cleared path in the book of Isaiah (who is identified as Jehovah/God), to the subject of the path in his own book (who is identified as Jesus).

This is irrefutable evidence of the fact that; Jesus is God.

Anyone who has beef with this, let me know.

[face2face]

Can you explain how your Jesus, being God, could be capable of sinning? Or do you, like many T believers, view Christ's sufferings as merely an illusion?

Trinitarian believe Jesus has dual nature, being God and being man. Being man feel hungry and being God does not, about probability to sin, being God do not have that but being man just like us, being seeds of the fallen Adam, we are sinful in nature. Jesus in sinful nature in flesh obtained from Mary, was tempted but overcame. The best example for us to emulate.

The burden of proof is on you, as I have clearly demonstrated the Lord’s true nature—that He is a created man, born of a woman, who experienced temptation and death.

We believe Jesus is not a creation, John 1:3 proves that, and John 1:18 proves that He is the only-begotten God.

We are told he died to sin once! God cannot die to sin.

No, Jesus on earth bare our sins, for us to have hope for eternal life in faith.(John 3:16)

I also know that you don’t fully believe Jesus actually died, which creates yet another contradiction—one with serious consequences for both you and your hope.

On contrary, I believe Jesus (in flesh) actually died for us.(1Pet 3:18)

F2F

Don't forget post #43 if you open those doors you will find the true Jesus!

Ok, I'll look at it.
Post#43 was my reply to your Post#42.

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man (often referred to as the "God-man"). This belief inherently requires Jesus to be simultaneously "God" and "not-God," unless you assume that "man" is the same as "God."

Do you assume this?

Trying to address this issue by appealing to the hypostatic union (two natures) the concept that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human in one person does not resolve the problem—it merely restates it, introducing an unbiblical concept in place of clear biblical evidence.

It's important to note Capbook that if you are suggesting that Jesus became two separate beings or persons by being both God and manthat he simultaneously belonged to two mutually exclusive categories, possessing conflicting attributes. This position is both scripturally and logically untenable.

As a result, the hypostatic union becomes what might be called the "hypostatic dilemma," a fact that Trinitarian scholars tacitly acknowledge by openly discussing the many challenges it presents (e.g., why did Jesus seem to lack omniscience? Was He capable of sin? Did He perform miracles by His own divine power or through the Holy Spirit's power?). Another major question that arose was whether Mary could be called theotokos ("God-bearer") as the mother of God the Son. The Eastern Church accepted this idea, but the Western Church rejected it as heretical, contributing to the Great Schism of AD 1054, which formally divided the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Now that you’ve introduced the concept of the hypostatic union into our discussion, I must ask you to demonstrate that this idea is purely biblical. Please note, I am not asking you to show that the word "hypostasis" appears in Scripture (it does briefly in Hebrews 1:3, though not in the context Trinitarianism requires). The hypostatic union goes beyond what Scripture explicitly states or even implies.

How do you arrive at this concept?

Even if you argue that Scripture portrays Jesus as "God and man" (or whatever phrasing you prefer), this does not explain what being "God and man" actually means, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being. Furthermore, it doesn’t establish that Jesus was incarnated as both God and man, possessing the natures, attributes, and characteristics of both.

Above all, it does not show that the hypostatic union is a biblical concept. This notion must necessarily be imported into Scripture, as it simply doesn't exist there in any form. It remains a piece of theological speculation regarding one aspect of Trinitarian Christology.

I’m actually more interested in your honesty on this point, rather than just hearing "this is what I believe," as has been your approach so far.

Up to this point, you've tried to use passages like John 1:18 (pp66) to demonstrate that Jesus is God. However, this is not sufficient to prove Trinitarianism. You also need to show that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Additionally, you must prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united in substance as three persons, yet comprise one being who is God. All of this must be supported solely by biblical concepts derived directly from Scripture.

You have a lot of work to do.

F2F

[Capbook]

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man (often referred to as the "God-man"). This belief inherently requires Jesus to be simultaneously "God" and "not-God," unless you assume that "man" is the same as "God"

Do you assume this?

No, Jesus as being man in flesh obtained from Mary. And God, as being the Son of God. If I am not wrong, I believe you are the one that PM me about a simple logic I've presented, almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Trying to address this issue by appealing to the hypostatic union (two natures) the concept that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human in one person does not resolve the problem—it merely restates it, introducing an unbiblical concept in place of clear biblical evidence.

Does Jesus statement not sufficient to you? As Jesus acknowledged that He is the "Son of Man" and "the Son of God" (Matt 26:63-64)
May I present to you another simple logic, still almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB

It's important to note Capbook that if you are suggesting that Jesus became two separate beings or persons by being both God and man that he simultaneously belonged to two mutually exclusive categories, possessing conflicting attributes. This position is both scripturally and logically untenable.

I have already quoted a Bible text. Is Matt 26: 63-64 not Biblical?

As a result, the hypostatic union becomes what might be called the "hypostatic dilemma," a fact that Trinitarian scholars tacitly acknowledge by openly discussing the many challenges it presents (e.g., why did Jesus seem to lack omniscience? Was He capable of sin? Did He perform miracles by His own divine power or through the Holy Spirit's power?). Another major question that arose was whether Mary could be called theotokos ("God-bearer") as the mother of God the Son. The Eastern Church accepted this idea, but the Western Church rejected it as heretical, contributing to the Great Schism of AD 1054, which formally divided the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Jesus seem to lack omniscience as Jesus though in the form of God emptied Himself, means He laid aside His being in the form of God. I think I've already explained why Jesus in human flesh has the potential to sin, again, Jesus can be tempted, but chose not to sin, a best example for us believers to emulate. Mary as the mother of the "Son of man" Jesus. I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why simple logic on two similar phrases above. I just hope to have an honest answer.

Now that you’ve introduced the concept of the hypostatic union into our discussion, I must ask you to demonstrate that this idea is purely biblical. Please note, I am not asking you to show that the word "hypostasis" appears in Scripture (it does briefly in Hebrews 1:3, though not in the context Trinitarianism requires). The hypostatic union goes beyond what Scripture explicitly states or even implies.

Already answered by Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64. Jesus as "Son of man" and Son of God."

How do you arrive at this concept?

This can be answered by your honest answer without twisting the simple logic, based from almost the same phrase.

Even if you argue that Scripture portrays Jesus as "God and man" (or whatever phrasing you prefer), this does not explain what being "God and man" actually means, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being. Furthermore, it doesn’t establish that Jesus was incarnated as both God and man, possessing the natures, attributes, and characteristics of both.

If you believe Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64, that answers your question.

Above all, it does not show that the hypostatic union is a biblical concept. This notion must necessarily be imported into Scripture, as it simply doesn't exist there in any form. It remains a piece of theological speculation regarding one aspect of Trinitarian Christology.

I really believe Matt 26:63-64 is Biblical, it's from Jesus.

I’m actually more interested in your honesty on this point, rather than just hearing "this is what I believe," as has been your approach so far.

I am more interested in your honesty, to answer my two almost the same phrase without twisting the logic in above replies.

Up to this point, you've tried to use passages like John 1:18 (pp66) to demonstrate that Jesus is God. However, this is not sufficient to prove Trinitarianism. You also need to show that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Additionally, you must prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united in substance as three persons, yet comprise one being who is God. All of this must be supported solely by biblical concepts derived directly from Scripture.

Yes, if Jesus is God and the Father is God, why can't the Holy Spirit not God in Matt 28:19 and Acts 5:3-4?

You have a lot of work to do.

I think it's done.

F2F
[/quote]

[face2face]

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man (often referred to as the "God-man"). This belief inherently requires Jesus to be simultaneously "God" and "not-God," unless you assume that "man" is the same as "God"

Do you assume this?

No, Jesus as being man in flesh obtained from Mary. And God, as being the Son of God. If I am not wrong, I believe you are the one that PM me about a simple logic I've presented, almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Trying to address this issue by appealing to the hypostatic union (two natures) the concept that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human in one person does not resolve the problem—it merely restates it, introducing an unbiblical concept in place of clear biblical evidence.

Does Jesus statement not sufficient to you? As Jesus acknowledged that He is the "Son of Man" and "the Son of God" (Matt 26:63-64)
May I present to you another simple logic, still almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB

It's important to note Capbook that if you are suggesting that Jesus became two separate beings or persons by being both God and man that he simultaneously belonged to two mutually exclusive categories, possessing conflicting attributes. This position is both scripturally and logically untenable.

I have already quoted a Bible text. Is Matt 26: 63-64 not Biblical?

As a result, the hypostatic union becomes what might be called the "hypostatic dilemma," a fact that Trinitarian scholars tacitly acknowledge by openly discussing the many challenges it presents (e.g., why did Jesus seem to lack omniscience? Was He capable of sin? Did He perform miracles by His own divine power or through the Holy Spirit's power?). Another major question that arose was whether Mary could be called theotokos ("God-bearer") as the mother of God the Son. The Eastern Church accepted this idea, but the Western Church rejected it as heretical, contributing to the Great Schism of AD 1054, which formally divided the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Jesus seem to lack omniscience as Jesus though in the form of God emptied Himself, means He laid aside His being in the form of God. I think I've already explained why Jesus in human flesh has the potential to sin, again, Jesus can be tempted, but chose not to sin, a best example for us believers to emulate. Mary as the mother of the "Son of man" Jesus. I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why simple logic on two similar phrases above. I just hope to have an honest answer.

Now that you’ve introduced the concept of the hypostatic union into our discussion, I must ask you to demonstrate that this idea is purely biblical. Please note, I am not asking you to show that the word "hypostasis" appears in Scripture (it does briefly in Hebrews 1:3, though not in the context Trinitarianism requires). The hypostatic union goes beyond what Scripture explicitly states or even implies.

Already answered by Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64. Jesus as "Son of man" and Son of God."

How do you arrive at this concept?

This can be answered by your honest answer without twisting the simple logic, based from almost the same phrase.

Even if you argue that Scripture portrays Jesus as "God and man" (or whatever phrasing you prefer), this does not explain what being "God and man" actually means, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being. Furthermore, it doesn’t establish that Jesus was incarnated as both God and man, possessing the natures, attributes, and characteristics of both.

If you believe Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64, that answers your question.

Above all, it does not show that the hypostatic union is a biblical concept. This notion must necessarily be imported into Scripture, as it simply doesn't exist there in any form. It remains a piece of theological speculation regarding one aspect of Trinitarian Christology.

I really believe Matt 26:63-64 is Biblical, it's from Jesus.

I’m actually more interested in your honesty on this point, rather than just hearing "this is what I believe," as has been your approach so far.

I am more interested in your honesty, to answer my two almost the same phrase without twisting the logic in above replies.

Up to this point, you've tried to use passages like John 1:18 (pp66) to demonstrate that Jesus is God. However, this is not sufficient to prove Trinitarianism. You also need to show that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Additionally, you must prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united in substance as three persons, yet comprise one being who is God. All of this must be supported solely by biblical concepts derived directly from Scripture.

Yes, if Jesus is God and the Father is God, why can't the Holy Spirit not God in Matt 28:19 and Acts 5:3-4?

You have a lot of work to do.

I think it's done.

F2F

You're far from finished!

After reviewing your responses, I have yet to see anything that clearly presents the duality of natures.

Let's simplify this even further for you:

[Insert a verse here]

Provide a single verse that explicitly teaches that Jesus had two natures.

Let’s address one piece of evidence at a time.

F2F

[Capbook]

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man (often referred to as the "God-man"). This belief inherently requires Jesus to be simultaneously "God" and "not-God," unless you assume that "man" is the same as "God"

Do you assume this?

No, Jesus as being man in flesh obtained from Mary. And God, as being the Son of God. If I am not wrong, I believe you are the one that PM me about a simple logic I've presented, almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Trying to address this issue by appealing to the hypostatic union (two natures) the concept that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human in one person does not resolve the problem—it merely restates it, introducing an unbiblical concept in place of clear biblical evidence.

Does Jesus statement not sufficient to you? As Jesus acknowledged that He is the "Son of Man" and "the Son of God" (Matt 26:63-64)
May I present to you another simple logic, still almost of the same phrase;

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Matt 26:63-64
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB

It's important to note Capbook that if you are suggesting that Jesus became two separate beings or persons by being both God and man that he simultaneously belonged to two mutually exclusive categories, possessing conflicting attributes. This position is both scripturally and logically untenable.

I have already quoted a Bible text. Is Matt 26: 63-64 not Biblical?

As a result, the hypostatic union becomes what might be called the "hypostatic dilemma," a fact that Trinitarian scholars tacitly acknowledge by openly discussing the many challenges it presents (e.g., why did Jesus seem to lack omniscience? Was He capable of sin? Did He perform miracles by His own divine power or through the Holy Spirit's power?). Another major question that arose was whether Mary could be called theotokos ("God-bearer") as the mother of God the Son. The Eastern Church accepted this idea, but the Western Church rejected it as heretical, contributing to the Great Schism of AD 1054, which formally divided the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Jesus seem to lack omniscience as Jesus though in the form of God emptied Himself, means He laid aside His being in the form of God. I think I've already explained why Jesus in human flesh has the potential to sin, again, Jesus can be tempted, but chose not to sin, a best example for us believers to emulate. Mary as the mother of the "Son of man" Jesus. I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why simple logic on two similar phrases above. I just hope to have an honest answer.

Now that you’ve introduced the concept of the hypostatic union into our discussion, I must ask you to demonstrate that this idea is purely biblical. Please note, I am not asking you to show that the word "hypostasis" appears in Scripture (it does briefly in Hebrews 1:3, though not in the context Trinitarianism requires). The hypostatic union goes beyond what Scripture explicitly states or even implies.

Already answered by Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64. Jesus as "Son of man" and Son of God."

How do you arrive at this concept?

This can be answered by your honest answer without twisting the simple logic, based from almost the same phrase.

Even if you argue that Scripture portrays Jesus as "God and man" (or whatever phrasing you prefer), this does not explain what being "God and man" actually means, nor does it prove that Jesus and God are of one substance, existing as two persons within the same being. Furthermore, it doesn’t establish that Jesus was incarnated as both God and man, possessing the natures, attributes, and characteristics of both.

If you believe Jesus acknowledgement in Mat 26:63-64, that answers your question.

Above all, it does not show that the hypostatic union is a biblical concept. This notion must necessarily be imported into Scripture, as it simply doesn't exist there in any form. It remains a piece of theological speculation regarding one aspect of Trinitarian Christology.

I really believe Matt 26:63-64 is Biblical, it's from Jesus.

I’m actually more interested in your honesty on this point, rather than just hearing "this is what I believe," as has been your approach so far.

I am more interested in your honesty, to answer my two almost the same phrase without twisting the logic in above replies.

Up to this point, you've tried to use passages like John 1:18 (pp66) to demonstrate that Jesus is God. However, this is not sufficient to prove Trinitarianism. You also need to show that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Additionally, you must prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united in substance as three persons, yet comprise one being who is God. All of this must be supported solely by biblical concepts derived directly from Scripture.

Yes, if Jesus is God and the Father is God, why can't the Holy Spirit not God in Matt 28:19 and Acts 5:3-4?

You have a lot of work to do.

I think it's done.

F2F

You're far from finished!

After reviewing your responses, I have yet to see anything that clearly presents the duality of natures.

Let's simplify this even further for you:

[Insert a verse here]

Provide a single verse that explicitly teaches that Jesus had two natures.

Let’s address one piece of evidence at a time.

F2F

You did not honestly answer my two simple logic presented. Why?
Is Jesus words not sufficient? (Mat 26:63-64)
Jesus acknowledged that He is the "Son of man" and "Son of God," was Jesus wrong when He admit that?
If you do not believe Jesus words, much more mine.
And if we do not abide in the teachings of Jesus, we don't have the Father. (2John 1:9)

2 John 9
9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
NASB

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #54]

If this is the extent of your evidence, then you are wasting both our time.

It would be more honest to simply acknowledge that the Bible is silent on the doctrine of two natures, so we can move forward in examining the true Christ.

However, if you're content with a fraudulent version, then by all means, continue as you were.

F2F

[face2face]

By the time the Trinity and its formula were fully developed, the true Gospel had long been corrupted by the religious leaders of the age.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the church formally declared the doctrine of the hypostatic union—an attempt to define how divinity and humanity were supposedly united in Jesus Christ, making him both fully divine and fully human.

So, what do Christians call something that cannot be defined or explained?

The Hypostatic Union is considered a mysterium stricte dictum—a mystery of faith, meaning it could not be known before its revelation, and even after its revelation, its inner possibility cannot be logically proven: "The reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation." —Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Bischöfliches Seminar St. Willibald, Copyright Baronius Press, 1957), 152.

Even many honest theologians acknowledge that this doctrine cannot be found in the Bible and is simply something to be believed rather than proven.

The extent to which people will go to deceive themselves is truly astounding.

F2F

[Capbook]

By the time the Trinity and its formula were fully developed, the true Gospel had long been corrupted by the religious leaders of the age.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the church formally declared the doctrine of the hypostatic union—an attempt to define how divinity and humanity were supposedly united in Jesus Christ, making him both fully divine and fully human.

So, what do Christians call something that cannot be defined or explained?

The Hypostatic Union is considered a mysterium stricte dictum—a mystery of faith, meaning it could not be known before its revelation, and even after its revelation, its inner possibility cannot be logically proven: "The reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation." —Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Bischöfliches Seminar St. Willibald, Copyright Baronius Press, 1957), 152.

Even many honest theologians acknowledge that this doctrine cannot be found in the Bible and is simply something to be believed rather than proven.

The extent to which people will go to deceive themselves is truly astounding.

F2F

I just wondered why this two simple logic cannot be addressed?
Honest answers of these questions without twisting the logic, these will nail the issues you raised.
I believe someone had said, it's very hard to support the would be distorted reasons Biblically.

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

[face2face]

By the time the Trinity and its formula were fully developed, the true Gospel had long been corrupted by the religious leaders of the age.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the church formally declared the doctrine of the hypostatic union—an attempt to define how divinity and humanity were supposedly united in Jesus Christ, making him both fully divine and fully human.

So, what do Christians call something that cannot be defined or explained?

The Hypostatic Union is considered a mysterium stricte dictum—a mystery of faith, meaning it could not be known before its revelation, and even after its revelation, its inner possibility cannot be logically proven: "The reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation." —Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Bischöfliches Seminar St. Willibald, Copyright Baronius Press, 1957), 152.

Even many honest theologians acknowledge that this doctrine cannot be found in the Bible and is simply something to be believed rather than proven.

The extent to which people will go to deceive themselves is truly astounding.

F2F

I just wondered why this two simple logic cannot be addressed?
Honest answers of these questions without twisting the logic, these will nail the issues you raised.
I believe someone had said, it's very hard to support the would be distorted reasons Biblically.

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Why is Isaiah 49:5 crucial for answering these questions?

Isaiah 49:5: "And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God has become my strength."

Could you clarify why you think Paul's mind was focused on the servant prophecies in Isaiah, and in what sense did God form Jesus—was it in nature, or in his character, mind and thinking?

Also, regarding the PDF document I sent you, does Philippians emphasize nature, or thinking (mind = servant)?

If you agree with Paul's premise that God shaped the character of His Son in a similar way to all His servants, then, considering that Christ shares in our nature and has learned the Scriptures and developed God's character, is Jesus able to ask the same of us who share in his nature?

Yes or no?

F2F

[Capbook]

By the time the Trinity and its formula were fully developed, the true Gospel had long been corrupted by the religious leaders of the age.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the church formally declared the doctrine of the hypostatic union—an attempt to define how divinity and humanity were supposedly united in Jesus Christ, making him both fully divine and fully human.

So, what do Christians call something that cannot be defined or explained?

The Hypostatic Union is considered a mysterium stricte dictum—a mystery of faith, meaning it could not be known before its revelation, and even after its revelation, its inner possibility cannot be logically proven: "The reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation." —Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Bischöfliches Seminar St. Willibald, Copyright Baronius Press, 1957), 152.

Even many honest theologians acknowledge that this doctrine cannot be found in the Bible and is simply something to be believed rather than proven.

The extent to which people will go to deceive themselves is truly astounding.

F2F

I just wondered why this two simple logic cannot be addressed?
Honest answers of these questions without twisting the logic, these will nail the issues you raised.
I believe someone had said, it's very hard to support the would be distorted reasons Biblically.

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Why is Isaiah 49:5 crucial for answering these questions?

Isaiah 49:5: "And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God has become my strength."

Could you clarify why you think Paul's mind was focused on the servant prophecies in Isaiah, and in what sense did God form Jesus—was it in nature, or in his character, mind and thinking?

Also, regarding the PDF document I sent you, does Philippians emphasize nature, or thinking (mind = servant)?

If you agree with Paul's premise that God shaped the character of His Son in a similar way to all His servants, then, considering that Christ shares in our nature and has learned the Scriptures and developed God's character, is Jesus able to ask the same of us who share in his nature?

Yes or no?

F2F

Isaiah 49:5, proves the no. 1 question, but does not answer the number 2. It's the Father's words addressing His Son, now become incarnate for the redemption of mankind," that formed me from the womb," this refers to the human nature of Christ formed in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost.

You just quote Isaiah here, I don't see apostle Paul's premise. Yes, Jesus as being in the likeness of man, experience all what human undergoes, feel hungry, tired, etc., tempted but overcame. Truly man in nature.

Regarding the PDF you've sent, I've just lightly examined it, because as you've said, "it very difficult to have a Bible-based conversation on the subject." To me it means unBiblical.

I am sorry, I don't see Paul's premise here.

But still you have not answered those two simple similar phrases by honest logic.

[Capbook]

By the time the Trinity and its formula were fully developed, the true Gospel had long been corrupted by the religious leaders of the age.

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, the church formally declared the doctrine of the hypostatic union—an attempt to define how divinity and humanity were supposedly united in Jesus Christ, making him both fully divine and fully human.

So, what do Christians call something that cannot be defined or explained?

The Hypostatic Union is considered a mysterium stricte dictum—a mystery of faith, meaning it could not be known before its revelation, and even after its revelation, its inner possibility cannot be logically proven: "The reality of which could not be known before its revelation, and the inner possibility of which cannot positively be proved even after its revelation." —Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Bischöfliches Seminar St. Willibald, Copyright Baronius Press, 1957), 152.

Even many honest theologians acknowledge that this doctrine cannot be found in the Bible and is simply something to be believed rather than proven.

The extent to which people will go to deceive themselves is truly astounding.

F2F

I just wondered why this two simple logic cannot be addressed?
Honest answers of these questions without twisting the logic, these will nail the issues you raised.
I believe someone had said, it's very hard to support the would be distorted reasons Biblically.

1. Jesus as in the form of a servant, is He man or not?
2. Jesus as in the form of God, is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

1. Jesus as the Son of Man as His mother is human. Is he man or not?
2. Jesus as the Son of God as His Father is God. Is He God or not? Why an honest answer to the first question cannot be applied to the second? Why and explain.

Why is Isaiah 49:5 crucial for answering these questions?

Isaiah 49:5: "And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God has become my strength."

Could you clarify why you think Paul's mind was focused on the servant prophecies in Isaiah, and in what sense did God form Jesus—was it in nature, or in his character, mind and thinking?

Also, regarding the PDF document I sent you, does Philippians emphasize nature, or thinking (mind = servant)?

If you agree with Paul's premise that God shaped the character of His Son in a similar way to all His servants, then, considering that Christ shares in our nature and has learned the Scriptures and developed God's character, is Jesus able to ask the same of us who share in his nature?

Yes or no?

F2F

Isaiah 49:5, proves the no. 1 question, but does not answer the number 2. It's the Father's words addressing His Son, now become incarnate for the redemption of mankind," that formed me from the womb," this refers to the human nature of Christ formed in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost.

You just quote Isaiah here, I don't see apostle Paul's premise. Yes, Jesus as being in the likeness of man, experience all what human undergoes, feel hungry, tired, etc., tempted but overcame. Truly man in nature.
Sorry, if you mean my no. 1 question as apostle Paul's premise? Yes, human nature.

Regarding the PDF you've sent, I've just lightly examined it, because as you've said, "it very difficult to have a Bible-based conversation on the subject." To me it means unBiblical.

Jesus is God from the beginning, and has not on anyway just developed God's character. (John 1:18)

But still you have not answered those two simple similar phrases by honest logic.