God born as man - any reference in old testament?

I would offer.

Not just a man but a man who did not do His own will of the corrupted flesh. but did do the will of our unseen that worked in Jesus together perfectly. Yet without sin .

The Son of God would speak of the power of God the Holy Spirit of God. No such thing as holiness of the corrupted flesh and blood. It has no power. Jesus said: It flesh and blood profits for zero.

Flesh = no Power dead
Spirit = Power living

Romans 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Where in the Bible does it say God cannot become a man...

… or is not a man?

My comment was directed to you, not the OP or it's poster. Point being Abrahams father is pre-incarnation OT Jehovah/God the Son.

No where, explicitly. Trinitarianism explains how the God who cannot change did not change when he became man.



Numbers 23:19

The footnote in NET doesn’t have much to say about this verse but it does inform us that when God says he isn’t a “human being,“ the Hebrew phrase is “son of man”. The NET translators equate the phrase “human being” with the phrase “son of man”.

https://netbible.org/bible/Numbers+23

I assume you’re aware that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is “truly God and truly man” (Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD). Are you aware that trinitarianism also teaches us that Jesus is not a human person?

No where, explicitly. Trinitarianism explains how the God who cannot change did not change when he became man.



Numbers 23:19

The footnote in NET doesn’t have much to say about this verse but it does inform us that when God says he isn’t a “human being,“ the Hebrew phrase is “son of man”. The NET translators equate the phrase “human being” with the phrase “son of man”.

https://netbible.org/bible/Numbers+23

I assume you’re aware that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is “truly God and truly man” (Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD). Are you aware that trinitarianism also teaches us that Jesus is not a human person?

Of course God is not a man by nature but that does not preclude God from becomming a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Moreover, Numbers 23:19 is showing that God is not a man or not like a man who lies and needs repentence. Jesus Christ never lied nor did He have to repent of anything since He was God in flesh and was sinless/perfect.

Trinitarianism insists on it. So, too, does trinitarianism insist that Jesus is not a human person.

Trinitarianism does teach (as does the Bible) that the person of Jesus Christ is a 100% human being contingent on His Father. We also insist (Biblically) that Jesus Christ is 100% Deity just like His Father. In other words, the one person Jesus Christ has two natures, one of human being on His mothers side and one of Deity on His Father's side. Hebrews 1:1-3.

As a side note you said, "A person's agent is regarded as the person who sent him." What if I was to prove to you that the agent that is sent can also be the sender?

What I’m referring to in my signature is the Jewish principle of agency. The one sent is not not the sender.

When I was in college I had a trinitarian professor who was hard core, no nonsense, do it right or don’t do it at all kind of guy. He despised what he called “watered down trinitarianism“. If a person didn’t hold orthodox belief about the doctrine then that person was either ignorant or a heretic; the former was to be educated, the latter was not to be tolerated in the body of Christ. (He didn’t approve of the torment, torture and killing of heretics which trinitarians practiced in the past, but neither did he condemn their actions. He called it “regrettable, but understandable”.)

I would like to ask you again, are you aware that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person? If you aren’t, why aren’t you? If you are, why is it not included in your comments on the doctrine?



I have no doubt that you’ve sent yourself somewhere before; that you were your own agent in whatever enterprise you were engaging in.

What I’m referring to in my signature is the Jewish principle of agency. The one sent is not not the sender.

Regarding your question, "are you aware that trinitarianism teaches us ths Jesus is not a human person" I say Jesus was God who became a human person.

Thank you. I don’t begrudge you your sincerely held belief. (And for the record, I believe scripture presents Jesus to us as a human person, and one who is, occasionally, called theos.) I must, however, point out that believing and teaching that Jesus is a human person is opposed to the historic trinitarian faith.

From Jews point of view,
How to prove the following from old testament (not from new testament)?
1. How to prove that God would born as a human, and the human can be worshipped as God?
2. How to prove that Messiah should be the God, but not just a man anointed by God?

Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 explain about the suffering, but do not answer the above I think.

This is not about how "sincere" or not "sincere" of what I believe.

It's about truth and truth is "objective," not subjective.

You deny the deity of Jesus Christ…

…and put Him in the category of Him being "theos" sort of like the judges at Psalm 82:6.

In fact Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 at John 10:30-38. Perhaps you can explain to me why He quoted the verse?

Keep in mind that Jesus said at John 10:3, "I and the Father are one."

One what?

I ask because the Jews at John 10:33 saidd, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You being a man, make Yourself out God." What was the blasphemy Mattathias?

If it isn’t then I wouldn’t have asked you.




I agree that truth is objective, not subjective.

The teaching of historical trinitarianism (Jesus is not a human person) is presented to us by those who hold it as [objective] truth. You and I agree that Jesus is a human person; I presume because we both believe that is the [objective] truth.



The deity of Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I affirm that Jesus is a human person, the Messiah, the Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I deny that the Messiah is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.



That is one of the ways that I understand him to be theos.



As human judges standing in the place of God, they were God’s agents/representatives; they were to be listened to, believed and obeyed. They shouldn’t take issue with that. The Messiah is the supreme human judge. They should have listened to, believed and obeyed him. That, they took issue with.



I’m sure you meant to write John 10:30.



Not, “one what?“ (That’s the question asked by later trinitarianism.) Rather, one how? (That’s the question asked by Jesus’ contemporaries.)



As you know, there was no blasphemy. His enraged enemies made a false accusation against him.

They repeatedly denied his messianic claim. He persisted. In their eyes, Jesus was bearing false witness against God (whom they - and he - believed is only one person, the Father) by claiming to be sent by him.

John wrote his Gospel to persuade his readers to believe what Jesus’ enemies refused to believe - that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

How about we do the following. Instead of kind of hijacking this thread I start another one dealing with what were talking about.

I like your suggestion. Count me in.

Will do tommorow, and thanks.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Well here is your "BIG" problem garee? Your contradicting yourself because you said, "It flesh and blood profits for zero" and yet Jesus was flesh and blood. Then you say He is without sin. Sin Jesus is sinless and perfect according to 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 4:15 then He must be God in human flesh. Why can't God become a man?

The Bible teaches that all men are sinners and all men are unrighteousness, and all men have deceitful hearts. This is without exception except for Jesus Christ. Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23. Not only that but Jesus Christ was "NOT" created, He was sent from heaven. John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:33, John 6:41, John 6:50 and other verses.

Now, you said the Son of God would speak of the pwoer of God and the Holy Spirit of God. All the things that Jesus did, the miracles, rasing the dead, Jesus giving all credit to His Father was to demonstrate His "credentials" that His Father backs up Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus kept giving credit to His Father. His Father is the second witness to prove that Jesus Christ is God the Son. This is not hard to understand if you would just read with some understanding.

If your understanding of a biblical verse or text conflicts with the text/context it's your understanding that is wrong, not the text. In other words, the text of scripture should always speakl for itself. What is does not say, it cannot mean. For example, Thomas declared Jesus Christ to be his "Lord and God." (John 20:28). If Thomas did not mean what he said then why did not Jesus correct him and say to Thomas, "Did I not say there is only one God and He shouuld be worshipped?"

You have to know garee how to "reconcile" verse that "appear" to contradict each other and yet they do not contradict each other.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I’m following you now so I should be able to locate your thread without any difficulty.

In the Son of God,
Mattathias