The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

Err...

Who could save the world from its sins? A mere man?

No, God. And Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

[Fortigurn]

Mr. Fortigurn, the reason that it appears to you that I am not reading your post is that I am not answering you the way you want. If you read my post again, you'll discover that I do answer all your questions but not in a manner you are familiar with.

No, the reason is that you're not answering my questions. You don't read my posts, you use terms you don't understand, you appear to cut and paste other people's work without acknowledgement, you don't reply to my arguments, and you repeat yourself in multiple posts without acknowledging my replies.

In the first page post of this thread you asked for Christians to give you specific scriptures that prove the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture evidence for it. It is there, you erred.

What I asked for - very specifically - was all the passages which define God as three persons in one being. I received a lot of verses (to which I replied), but it was generally acknowledged that there is no passage in the Bible which says that God is three persons in one being.

First and foremost, what is doctrine? Doctrine means something taught; principles of a religion, political party, individual, etc; Tenet or tenets of a belief, etc.

Yes, I believe we can agree on that.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is based on principles found in scripture.

We've been here before (several pages ago). In other words, there are no passages which formally define and declare the doctrine. Yes, we knew that pages ago.

There is evidence for it within the scriptures. You want facts from the bible, don't you?

That's what I'm looking for, yes.

You assume Christians cannot produce any.

No I don't assume it, I know it. It has been acknowledged here that the doctrine of the trinity is derived from Scripture, not revealed in Scripture.

Thus you demand and demand proof of this Doctrine. Many have given you the proof which most of it comes from the same scriptures you use to refute this doctrine.

Many have given me passages which say absolutely zero about God being three persons in one being, a few passages which have been badly translated, and at least one 'passage' which doesn't even belong in the Bible.

Forgive me for not being convinced by such a performance.

What you are doing reminds me of the paradigm of logical fallacy. What is that? The paradigm of logical fallacy is clearly exemplified by this story. A great college English professor stands before his class and ask, “Does anyone know what a paradigm is?” and one of his students reply, “It is about Twenty Cents.”

In other words, one hears what they want too and deduces by logic what they perceive as truth based on many varied factors which produce a fallacy of reason, worldview, outlook, doctrine, belief, and etc.

You asked for specific scriptures that prove the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore I will give them to you. However, we will do so according to a few rules. Why? To thwart this paradigm from happening: these rules will clarify what is truly meant in our endeavor and that no more misunderstanding occurs between us.

This is getting weirder and weirder. Could you have someone else check your posts for coherence before you post them please? I'm really finding it difficult to read this 'stream of consciousness' style of discourse.

But before we begin, let me state clearly that the Doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on who Jesus Christ is. To understand the Doctrine of the Trinity is to understand who Jesus is and what He did.

If you cannot grasp Jesus, you will not take hold of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, all of Christendom stands or falls on who Jesus is and what He did as well as the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is found in Christ Jesus. If you want proof of its existence, look no further than Jesus. If Jesus is not who he claims to be, then there is no Trinity. If no Trinity then there is no salvation Christians profess and you have won and can be content in this grand accomplishment. If you cannot disprove this Doctrine, what then?

If you agree, we will now begin to explore the Doctrine of the Trinity by looking at Jesus Christ and what the bible truly says on this matter a few scriptures at a time just like you asked before but this time by following a few rules to maintain order.

We will proceed in an orderly fashion, slowly, and take as long or short as it takes. I will begin with a scripture and then you will follow — one subject at a time wherever it leads. No more round robin endless debates on multiple themes. Others that read this thread please feel free to chime in and post but I ask everyone to stay within the topics theme presented within the frame under discussion.

If you read the previous pages, you'll find that I have already been through this exact same process with almost half a dozen other people.

He will begin with one scripture that sums it all up about Jesus and go from there. You asked for specific scriptures that prove the doctrine of the Trinity and scripture evidence for it. Now we will begin.

The Greek language is very specific here. It means what the English translations means. This is why I choose it.

I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh”

I ask, how so?
-
-
-

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

This reading is found in none of the earliest manuscripts, and doesn't appear in the uncials until the 8-9th centuries:

'...no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.'

Bruce Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary To The Greek New Testament', page 574, 1994

If you had taken the time to do even a little research, you would have discovered this fact. You would also have discovered that most modern Bible translations recognise this:

New English Translation:

16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh,

New American Bible:

16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh,

New Century Version:

16 Without doubt, the secret of our life of worship is great: He was shown to us in a human body,

Revised Standard Version:

16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,

New Revised Standard Version:

16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh,

American Standard Version:

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh,

Contemporary English Version:

16 Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human.

Good News Bible:

16 No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form,

Please check your facts before continuing this discussion, especially when it comes to textual criticism.

[puritan lad]

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

Uh, Yes it does

1 Timothy 3:16 (Greek NT: Textus Receptus)

και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη

1 Timothy 3:16 (Young's Literal Translation)

"and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!"

The Trinity Doctrine is based on the fact that there is one God, and that 3 persons represent that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). All three were present at Creation. All three save. All three are worshipped. All three are named at baptism. All three deserve to be given glory. All three share names and titles. All three have a will. All three are are referred to with personal pronouns.

Fortigurn, you're trying to outsmart the Bible. If what you say is true, then the modern Bible is corrupt. Your theology requires that we have the original Greek Manuscripts and that we all be able to read them. Since we don't have any of the ancient manuscripts available to us today, we have problems. Jesus was wrong when he said that His Word will never pass away (you suggest that is has).

You are correct in that your theology is not new. It existed in ancient times and was called Arianism. It was considered a heresy by the church then, and it is a heresy today.

[Forge]

No, God. And Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So, yes, Jesus was a mere man.

I feel uncomfortable that a sinful creature marred by original sin and susceptible to my failings is my mediator to my Lord.

[B. W.]

The purpose of my last post was an offer to you and the forum community here to explore the doctrine of the Trinity in a logical manner. I simply laid out a format to use and began the discussion. The Doctrine is there.

You boldly claim that you have done so and all this is useless predicate as you stated that,
"We've been here before (several pages ago). In other words, there are no passages which formally define and declare the doctrine. Yes, we knew that pages ago.”

Then I stated that there is evidence for the doctrine in the scriptures and that you want these facts and you clearly answered, “That's what I'm looking for, yes.”

When I acknowledge that you assume Christians cannot produce any you said, “No I don't assume it, I know it. It has been acknowledged here that the doctrine of the trinity is derived from Scripture, not revealed in Scripture.”

Doctrine is derived from scripture as that is what Doctrine means: Doctrine means something taught; principles of a religion, political party, individual, etc; Tenet or tenets of a belief, etc.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is also clearly revealed in scripture and that is how it is derived. You demanded proof of this doctrine and claim that, “Many have given me passages which say absolutely zero about God being three persons in one being, a few passages which have been badly translated, and at least one 'passage' which doesn't even belong in the Bible. Forgive me for not being convinced by such a performance”

This is not a performance Mr. Fortigurn.

You stated that, “If you read the previous pages, you'll find that I have already been through this exact same process with almost half a dozen other people.”

I have and that is why I am setting up some rules and boundaries that will begin with one scripture that sums it up and go from there.

First rule: The doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on who Jesus Christ is as He is the second Person of the Trinity. Destroy that, you disprove the doctrine. We will begin there with this scripture because the Greek language is very specific here. It means what the English translations means. This is why I chose it.

I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh”

I ask, how so?

For an answer you stated, “This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all. This reading is found in none of the earliest manuscripts, and doesn't appear in the uncials until the 8-9th centuries. If you had taken the time to do even a little research, you would have discovered this fact. You would also have discovered that most modern Bible translations recognize this. Please check your facts before continuing this discussion, especially when it comes to textual criticism. ”

Let's use the paradigm of logical fallacy and examine your claim concerning this scripture.


Your View ------------------------------------------Why----------------------------------------Based on
Passage does not contain Theos - -- Early manuscripts do not contain it --- textual criticism — opinion based on human supposition early is best

Christian View
Passage does contain Theos--------------It is there-----------------------Bible text teaches so elsewhere, backs up the construct — opinion based on Bible not human supposition.

Your view — Logical fallacy of deduction based on human suppositions: Pulls sources from elsewhere based on personal belief that early Alexandrian Gnostic texts are best that rely on two very shaky manuscripts proposed as derived by scribes who doctored text to suit own interpretations.

Christian View — Objective deduction of facts based on Bible alone. No pulling sources from elsewhere to nullify bible passages one does not like to hear.

Next, since you do question text sourcing: as for text, it comes from Received text — or Majority text since it represents 95 percent of manuscript evidence and produced the following translations: King James Bible, Tynadales Bible, Luther's German Bible, Olivatan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible, The Traditional Text that has been preserve by the Greek Orthodox Church through the centuries, etc.

Mr. Fortigurn, I ask all on this forum to use a method in which will examine the Trinity based on examining who Jesus is in a basic question and answer format.

So far your claims show that you do not want to do so. If this is the case, then I ask you to personally refrain from responding to this forum thread any longer, as you yourself stated that you went through this already, before. True, we have your opinions; therefore, do we need you to continue to chase rabbits instead of sticking with the question and answer format posed here?

If you wish to discuss this in a rational and logical manner, just answer the question repeated below. If you cannot do this, I ask that you volunteer to no longer post on this thread. Now, If you continue to be disruptive in this fair investigation of the Trinity, I will ask the moderators, if they could be so kind, as to lock you out of this thread so you cannot respond anymore as you cannot hold intelligent dialog or reasonable discourse. The choice is yours.

I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh”

I ask: how could God be manifest in the flesh?

I will take this as your answer: the Greek language never verifies Jesus as God. If that is your position, we can continue by exploring this further.

Next Frame:
-
-
-

[B. W.]

In Greek: when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word 'and' and the first noun is preceded by the article 'the' and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same thing, etc, to which the first noun refers.

Do you agree with this basic rule of Greek grammar mentioned here?
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

No, God. And Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So, yes, Jesus was a mere man.

Those were direct quotes from Scripture. It's amazing that you find difficulty accepting them. By the way, Christ was not 'a mere man', he was and is the son of God.

I feel uncomfortable that a sinful creature marred by original sin and susceptible to my failings is my mediator to my Lord.

I don't believe in 'original sin', and I certainly do not believe that Christ was 'a sinful creature'. Nor do I believe that he is now 'susceptible to my failings'.

[Fortigurn]

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

Uh, Yes it does

1 Timothy 3:16 (Greek NT: Textus Receptus)

και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη

1 Timothy 3:16 (Young's Literal Translation)

"and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety -- God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!"

Please read my post. It is completely clear to me that that you didn't read what I just posted. What you are showing me here is a quote from the Textus Receptus of all things, an eclectic text which used manuscripts no older than the 9th century.

You are not showing me the authoratative textual evidence.

The Trinity Doctrine is based on the fact that there is one God, and that 3 persons represent that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). All three were present at Creation. All three save. All three are worshipped. All three are named at baptism. All three deserve to be given glory. All three share names and titles. All three have a will. All three are are referred to with personal pronouns.

Thank you, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind the trinity. What I'm asking you to do is to actually prove it from Scripture.

Fortigurn, you're trying to outsmart the Bible. If what you say is true, then the modern Bible is corrupt.

No I am not. I have given you eight different modern Bibles which translate this passage correctly.

Your theology requires that we have the original Greek Manuscripts and that we all be able to read them.

My theology requires nothing of the kind.

Since we don't have any of the ancient manuscripts available to us today, we have problems. Jesus was wrong when he said that His Word will never pass away (you suggest that is has).

Of course Jesus wasn't wrong when he said that his word would never pass away - the fact that we have more than eight modern Bible translations which give the correct rendering of this passage, proves this.

You are correct in that your theology is not new. It existed in ancient times and was called Arianism. It was considered a heresy by the church then, and it is a heresy today.

You don't understand what I believe at all. I reject Arianism completely.

[Fortigurn]

In Greek: when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word 'and' and the first noun is preceded by the article 'the' and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same thing, etc, to which the first noun refers.

Do you agree with this basic rule of Greek grammar mentioned here?

Firstly, this 'basic rule of Greek grammar' (referred to as the 'Granville Sharp' rule, or construction), actually contains many exceptions.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that there are in fact only two Christologically significant texts to which it can legitimately be applied.

Thirdly, it is also acknowledged that both of these could be exceptions to the Granville Sharp construction.

You're much better off actually making your case from Scripture.

[Fortigurn]

The purpose of my last post was an offer to you and the forum community here to explore the doctrine of the Trinity in a logical manner. I simply laid out a format to use and began the discussion. The Doctrine is there.

You boldly claim that you have done so and all this is useless predicate as you stated that,
"We've been here before (several pages ago). In other words, there are no passages which formally define and declare the doctrine. Yes, we knew that pages ago.”

Then I stated that there is evidence for the doctrine in the scriptures and that you want these facts and you clearly answered, “That's what I'm looking for, yes.”

When I acknowledge that you assume Christians cannot produce any you said, “No I don't assume it, I know it. It has been acknowledged here that the doctrine of the trinity is derived from Scripture, not revealed in Scripture.”

Doctrine is derived from scripture as that is what Doctrine means: Doctrine means something taught; principles of a religion, political party, individual, etc; Tenet or tenets of a belief, etc.

You're restating what we have already been over in this thread several times.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is also clearly revealed in scripture and that is how it is derived.

You're committing the logical fallacy of petito principii.

You demanded proof of this doctrine and claim that, “Many have given me passages which say absolutely zero about God being three persons in one being, a few passages which have been badly translated, and at least one 'passage' which doesn't even belong in the Bible. Forgive me for not being convinced by such a performance”

This is not a performance Mr. Fortigurn.

It certainly is a performance. I would love to know what you call it.

You stated that, “If you read the previous pages, you'll find that I have already been through this exact same process with almost half a dozen other people.”

I have and that is why I am setting up some rules and boundaries that will begin with one scripture that sums it up and go from there.

If you have read that, then why are you doing it all again?

First rule: The doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on who Jesus Christ is as He is the second Person of the Trinity. Destroy that, you disprove the doctrine.

The doctrine of the trinity stands or falls on whether or not God is defined in Scripture as three persons in one being. Simply proving that Christ is Divine does not constitute evidence for the trinity.

We will begin there with this scripture because the Greek language is very specific here. It means what the English translations means. This is why I chose it.

I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh”

I ask, how so?

For an answer you stated, “This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all. This reading is found in none of the earliest manuscripts, and doesn't appear in the uncials until the 8-9th centuries. If you had taken the time to do even a little research, you would have discovered this fact. You would also have discovered that most modern Bible translations recognize this. Please check your facts before continuing this discussion, especially when it comes to textual criticism. ”

Let's use the paradigm of logical fallacy and examine your claim concerning this scripture.


Your View ------------------------------------------Why----------------------------------------Based on
Passage does not contain Theos - -- Early manuscripts do not contain it --- textual criticism — opinion based on human supposition early is best

Christian View
Passage does contain Theos--------------It is there-----------------------Bible text teaches so elsewhere, backs up the construct — opinion based on Bible not human supposition.

Your view — Logical fallacy of deduction based on human suppositions: Pulls sources from elsewhere based on personal belief that early Alexandrian Gnostic texts are best that rely on two very shaky manuscripts proposed as derived by scribes who doctored text to suit own interpretations.

Christian View — Objective deduction of facts based on Bible alone. No pulling sources from elsewhere to nullify bible passages one does not like to hear.

You are not really listening, are you? I have given you eight modern Christian Bible translations, representing the current textual scholarship. You have to give me reasons for considering them 'non-Christian'.

You also have to deal with the fact that this reading of the text does not rest on 'on two very shaky manuscripts proposed as derived by scribes who doctored text to suit own interpretations'.

If you had read what I wrote, you would know this.

Next, since you do question text sourcing: as for text, it comes from Received text — or Majority text since it represents 95 percent of manuscript evidence and produced the following translations: King James Bible, Tynadales Bible, Luther's German Bible, Olivatan's French Bible, the Geneva Bible, The Traditional Text that has been preserve by the Greek Orthodox Church through the centuries, etc.

But unfortunately the reading of the text which you have given me does not appear until the 8-9th centuries. That's the problem here.

Mr. Fortigurn, I ask all on this forum to use a method in which will examine the Trinity based on examining who Jesus is in a basic question and answer format.

So far your claims show that you do not want to do so.

I have done no such thing.

If you wish to discuss this in a rational and logical manner, just answer the question repeated below. If you cannot do this, I ask that you volunteer to no longer post on this thread. Now, If you continue to be disruptive in this fair investigation of the Trinity, I will ask the moderators, if they could be so kind, as to lock you out of this thread so you cannot respond anymore as you cannot hold intelligent dialog or reasonable discourse. The choice is yours.

I Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh”

I ask: how could God be manifest in the flesh?

I will take this as your answer: the Greek language never verifies Jesus as God. If that is your position, we can continue by exploring this further.

No, you can take as my answer 'This is an inaccurate rendering of the text, based on manuscripts no older than the 8-9th centuries'. Please don't put words in my mouth, just read my posts.

[Forge]

I don't believe in 'original sin', and I certainly do not believe that Christ was 'a sinful creature'. Nor do I believe that he is now 'susceptible to my failings'.

And this was because Christ was some sort of God-powered superhuman, yes?

[Byblos]

New English Translation:

16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh,

New American Bible:

16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh,

New Century Version:

16 Without doubt, the secret of our life of worship is great: He was shown to us in a human body,

Revised Standard Version:

16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,

New Revised Standard Version:

16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh,

American Standard Version:

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh,

Contemporary English Version:

16 Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human.

Good News Bible:

16 No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form,

Please check your facts before continuing this discussion, especially when it comes to textual criticism.

Of course, there are other translations that do show it:

1 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


1 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.

But that is not my point. It is this: Does it really make a difference whether or not the word 'Theos' was there? The meaning is very clear even without it. Anyone who reads 'WHO was manifested in the flesh' cannot but arrive at one conclusion and that being that God was manifested in the flesh. After all, it is the mystery and godliness of our religion. There's certainly nothing mysterious about some ordinary child being born even immaculately (as he was bestowed with some special powers later when he was baptized - am I correct Fortigurn?).

If the author did not want to convey the message of God being manifested in the flesh he could have simply said 'He who was born and was given Godly powers'. Why bother with the manifestation business? Is it to confuse us? I don't think so as those words were inspired by the Holly Spirit and as such, their meaning is all too clear to the literate and the illeterate alike (save the skeptics and the self-proclaimed know-it-alls).

In any case Fortigurn, I suggest we either stick to B.W.'s format or end this farce once and for all.

[B. W.]

If the author did not want to convey the message of God being manifested in the flesh he could have simply said 'He who was born and was given Godly powers'. Why bother with the manifestation business? Is it to confuse us? I don't think so as those words were inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such, their meaning is all too clear to the literate and the illeterate alike (save the skeptics and the self-proclaimed know-it-alls).

You are correct - even the Who - sings out Jesus' name in all the scripture quotes - as Mr. Fortigurn has so politely provided!

Yes, the bible proclaims Jesus was God - second person of the Trintiy as Mr Fortigurn's quotes clearly show and Thank you Mr. Fortigurn for agreeing with us!

[B. W.]

I wrote to Mr, Fortigurn in response to I Timothy 3:16 concerning Greek Grammar, “I will take this as your answer: the Greek language never verifies Jesus as God. If that is your position, we can continue by exploring this further.”

Then Mr. Fortigurn answered my question like:

This was a particularly bad choice of passages on your part. I really hate to break it to you, but the Greek text does not have 'theos' ('God'), here at all.

Firstly, this 'basic rule of Greek grammar' (referred to as the 'Granville Sharp' rule, or construction), actually contains many exceptions.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that there are in fact only two Christologically significant texts to which it can legitimately be applied.

Thirdly, it is also acknowledged that both of these could be exceptions to the Granville Sharp construction.

You're much better off actually making your case from Scripture.

M. Fortigurn, I am following the rule I set up and follow along with your discussion on Greek Grammar since you brought it up, first — not I.

Therefore, in regards to your response concerning Greek Grammar, could you so enlighten us with your most excellent knowledge of Greek and explain the use of the Granville Sharpe rule of Construction and how it applies and what determines if it does not apply ?

Next and off topic - I do own the moderators of this Forum an apology as I failed to properly quote my source when quoting:

“In Greek: when two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word 'and' and the first noun is preceded by the article 'the' and the second noun is not preceded by the article, the second noun refers to the same thing, etc, to which the first noun refers.”

This is a paraphrase from “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey page 147 and from my personal lecture notes concerning Greek grammar.
-
-

[B. W.]

No, God. And Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So, yes, Jesus was a mere man.

I feel uncomfortable that a sinful creature marred by original sin and susceptible to my failings is my mediator to my Lord.

No, God. And Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So, yes, Jesus was a mere man.

Those were direct quotes from Scripture. It's amazing that you find difficulty accepting them. By the way, Christ was not 'a mere man', he was and is the son of God.

I feel uncomfortable that a sinful creature marred by original sin and susceptible to my failings is my mediator to my Lord.

I don't believe in 'original sin', and I certainly do not believe that Christ was 'a sinful creature'. Nor do I believe that he is now 'susceptible to my failings'.

And this was because Christ was some sort of God-powered superhuman, yes?

Scripture is explicit on this point - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

God Manifest or He Manifest in the Flesh must mean Jesus was both God and Man just as Mr. Fortigurn was so kind to point out as it is written - There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

If Jesus was just a man, he sinned by breaking the law claiming He was God and existing before He was begotten. If you say that Jesus kept the law by the power of God, he still remains a man.

If Jesus were only a man, how could He say, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am He. (John 8:23-24 RSV)”

And again in John 8:54-58 it declares - Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that He is your God. But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad. The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple (RSV).

If Jesus was just a superman man, he remains a man and if only a man he sinned by declaring that he existed before he was begotten and declared himself God.

In John 10:30-31 Jesus said boldly states - I and the Father are one and then the Jewish religious leaders took up stones again to stone him for saying this because he broke the law.

The Bible tells us the Jesus kept the law and remained sinless. Jesus remains a perfect man who kept the law and was thus sinless but how can this be?

Why Mr. Fortigurn, thank you for providing the bible quotes! - God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (God).

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Truly He was manifest in Flesh! as it is written in 1 Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the Flesh" KJV