Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote: No I am not saying that Jesus was empowered by God to have 'two sides — Deity by empowerment, and Human by nature'. He had one side, like all humans, because he was a human being (not a crossbreed)

B. W. wrote: I do not mean this in the Trinitarian concept. Deity empowered by Spirit power at the birth of Jesus thus making Jesus who is by nature a man to achieve goals as stated in the Bible that from this achievement of power/humanity He earned the right to rule and reign as described in Hebrews 2:7 “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet (NKJV)”

Fortigurn wrote: What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

B. W. wrote: Hebrews 1:1-4 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)

B. W. wrote:If this is your position, or even close to it, that God empowered Jesus to rule and reign simply because of granting power to do so, then Jesus was a man with incredible powers to behave like Deity as scripture states?

Fortigurn wrote:I have already explained this more than once. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

Fortigurn wrote: What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'?

B. W. wrote: What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

Fortigurn wrote: If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was in fact making my argument from the original text, not from the translations. I pointed out that modern translations have made the shift out of a recognition of the original text.

B. W. wrote: Mr. Fortigurn, you are predictable. Attempting to dissuade and silence the honest discourse concerning the doctrine of the Trinity by use of textual criticisms. You believe that the supposed 'older texts' are the only ones to adhere too. In doing so, you are denying the testimony of the historical record.

There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

In 325 the Council of Nicaea was assembled. Let's see, that was after 69 AD. Why was it held? A new doctrine came into vogue that attempted to overthrow the traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to the sub-apostolic era and on up to the year 325. This debate was over the deity of Christ since Jesus was begotten by Mary did this mean he did not exist prior. Arius brought the debate front and center and this debate still continues.

Even during the Apostle Age, Paul battled the Gnostic's of his time that denied who Jesus was. Arius continued along a similar vein of thinking as the Gnostic's. This is historical record and should cause the human mind to question - modern 'best' theory.

Even Today, the fight still rages but more deviously, how — discredit the bible itself because the Bible can be only translated from fragments and that these Older Fragments don't have accepted text.

How can you or I prove that the older fragments were not Gnostic or from the Arius age? Can they be trusted? Should they be trusted only because these affirm that Jesus was not from everlasting, or promote Gnostic thought? Do those promoting acceptance of oldest text rule have an agenda based on discrediting for ego sake?

Neither of us really can prove what fragments are accurate. One side seeks discrediting and the other does not, but common sense tells us a different story. People hate Jesus as deity but like the thought of him as only a mere man. What do the apostolic and sub-apostolic records reveal? The record shows these people sure thought much different than the modern 'best' translation peoples propose.

Writings from the sub-apostolic age from 69-160 AD remain and boldly refute Gnostic and Arius claims. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to Diognetus, and Clement of Rome all wrote their writings much earlier than these modern textual scholars would like to admit.

What do the best text people do? Attack these writings! Just Like you will.

What did sub-apostolic era people believe, teach, and warn against and to the early Christians under there charge? In Ignatius of Antioch epistle to the Ephesians 1:7 “Very Flesh and Spirit too, Uncreated and yet born, God in one agreed, Very Life in Death indeed, Fruit of God, Mary's seed; At once impassible and torn, By pain and suffering here below, Jesus Christ — whom as our Lord we know.”

The epistle to Diognetus, Part two the Homily section 11 — speaking of Jesus, “He has existed since the beginning, He came as one appearing newly; though we know Him to be from old, He was born ever anew in the hearts of His saints. This is He who was from everlasting…”

Polycarp of Smyrna epistle to the Church at Philippi 1:7, “To deny Jesus Christ has come in the Flesh is to be anti-Christ. To contradict the evidence of the cross is to be of the devil. And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us.”

Martyrdom of Polycarp 1:11 “But what you are unaware of are the flames of everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to do” These Quotes from “Early Christian Writings” Penguin Classics.

A man thrown to the lions and another burned alive, who taught that Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh, and was from everlasting, were brave men and to deny them their say because in is inconvenient is a gross injustice to the historical record.

This the modern best text hypothesis people do and then, like you — explains these records as never occurring or of a latter era because records from that era show Gnostic influence as well. Hmmm?? The Apostle Paul warned us about those people did he not??? Just for that reason alone — the best text theory should be called in suspect.

Polycarp was correct: “And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us”

The question still stands — God manifest in the Flesh — How can this be?

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

This most certainly does not prove Christ was just a man. What it does prove is that God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being, as evidenced by John 1, but we all know how you feel about that one.

Acts 2:
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

It is simply amazing how you can quote the part that seems to bolster your case and at the same time totally skip over the part that does not. Well, I took the liberty of highlighting it for you above. But I'm sure you'll find some textual or linguistic reason why it does not say what it clearly and unequivocally says.

That is exactly why I keep repeating that your arguments are old and tiring. It seems there is no longer a need to respond to your posts. Simply highlighting your errors is enough to refute your position.

B. W. wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case. Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

Yes I read your post - but for those who do not wish to read the enitre Wallace paper should heed his Conclusion on the matter stated in this source by Wallace, even you Mr. Fortigurn at the end of this page frame:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

B. W. wrote:What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

Fortigurn wrote: If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was in fact making my argument from the original text, not from the translations. I pointed out that modern translations have made the shift out of a recognition of the original text.

B. W. wrote: Mr. Fortigurn, you are predictable. Attempting to dissuade and silence the honest discourse concerning the doctrine of the Trinity by use of textual criticisms.

You believe that the supposed 'older texts' are the only ones to adhere too. In doing so, you are denying the testimony of the historical record.

There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

In 325 the Council of Nicaea was assembled. Let's see, that was after 69 AD.

Why was it held? A new doctrine came into vogue that attempted to overthrow the traditions handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles, to the sub-apostolic era and on up to the year 325. This debate was over the deity of Christ since Jesus was begotten by Mary did this mean he did not exist prior. Arius brought the debate front and center and this debate still continues.

Even during the Apostle Age, Paul battled the Gnostic's of his time that denied who Jesus was. Arius continued along a similar vein of thinking as the Gnostic's. This is historical record and should cause the human mind to question - modern 'best' theory.

Even Today, the fight still rages but more deviously, how — discredit the bible itself because the Bible can be only translated from fragments and that these Older Fragments don't have accepted text.

How can you or I prove that the older fragments were not Gnostic or from the Arius age?

Can they be trusted? Should they be trusted only because these affirm that Jesus was not from everlasting, or promote Gnostic thought?

Do those promoting acceptance of oldest text rule have an agenda based on discrediting for ego sake?

Neither of us really can prove what fragments are accurate.

One side seeks discrediting and the other does not, but common sense tells us a different story.

People hate Jesus as deity but like the thought of him as only a mere man. What do the apostolic and sub-apostolic records reveal? The record shows these people sure thought much different than the modern 'best' translation peoples propose.

Writings from the sub-apostolic age from 69-160 AD remain and boldly refute Gnostic and Arius claims. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Letter to Diognetus, and Clement of Rome all wrote their writings much earlier than these modern textual scholars would like to admit.

What do the best text people do? Attack these writings! Just Like you will.

What did sub-apostolic era people believe, teach, and warn against and to the early Christians under there charge? In Ignatius of Antioch epistle to the Ephesians 1:7 “Very Flesh and Spirit too, Uncreated and yet born, God in one agreed, Very Life in Death indeed, Fruit of God, Mary's seed; At once impassible and torn, By pain and suffering here below, Jesus Christ — whom as our Lord we know.”

The epistle to Diognetus, Part two the Homily section 11 — speaking of Jesus, “He has existed since the beginning, He came as one appearing newly; though we know Him to be from old, He was born ever anew in the hearts of His saints. This is He who was from everlasting…”

Polycarp of Smyrna epistle to the Church at Philippi 1:7, “To deny Jesus Christ has come in the Flesh is to be anti-Christ. To contradict the evidence of the cross is to be of the devil. And to suit the Lord's words to suite our own wishes, by asserting that there is no such thing as resurrection or judgment, is to be the first begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back again to the Word originally delivered to us.”

Martyrdom of Polycarp 1:11 “But what you are unaware of are the flames of everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to do” These Quotes from “Early Christian Writings” Penguin Classics.

A man thrown to the lions and another burned alive, who taught that Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh, and was from everlasting, were brave men and to deny them their say because in is inconvenient is a gross injustice to the historical record.

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:What do you mean by 'Deity empowered by Spirit power'? Why would 'Deity' need to be 'empowered'? I certainly agree with the passage in Hebrews here which says that Christ was exalted by the Father to a position which previously he did not hold. This is one of the passages which proves he was not God.

This most certainly does not prove Christ was just a man. What it does prove is that God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being, as evidenced by John 1, but we all know how you feel about that one.

The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

Fortigurn wrote:

Acts 2:
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I've showed you these quotes (and others), before.

Fortigurn wrote:

Also in Hebrews 1:1-4 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

It is simply amazing how you can quote the part that seems to bolster your case and at the same time totally skip over the part that does not. Well, I took the liberty of highlighting it for you above. But I'm sure you'll find some textual or linguistic reason why it does not say what it clearly and unequivocally says.

I hate to keep doing this to you, but your articulation of this pasage is actually nothing more than the Arian interpretation. It was the Arians who argued that Christ was the Divine being through whom God created all things. Christ, they argued (from passages such as these), was the instrument of God, the means by which He created all things - delegating His power and authority to an agent, rather than performing the work Himself.

1 John 1:1,2,3 (NJB) wrote: 1:1In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

Fortigurn wrote:This is not the trinity, and this argument was rejected by the trinitarians. Rightly so, because it contradicts the trinitarian doctrine - it makes God and Christ two separate beings. The moment you have Christ as the agent of God, then you acknowledge that Christ is not God, instead he is the one that God uses to perform His will. This makes for great Arianism, but poor trinitarianism.

The meaning of the phrase 'through whom He [God] created the world', is actually 'on account of whom He [God] created the world'. This was also the opinion of certain trinitarians, such as Grotius (16-17th centuries), Henry (1721), and Gill (1748), all of whom were staunch trinitarians, so please don't tell me it's something I invented to get out of a trinitarian application of this passage. This usage of the Greek here is found elsewhere in Paul.

Fortigurn wrote:

That is exactly why I keep repeating that your arguments are old and tiring. It seems there is no longer a need to respond to your posts. Simply highlighting your errors is enough to refute your position.

The problem is that firstly you don't know the history of your own Christological position, secondly you don't understand the position of modern evangelical scholarship on this issue, and thirdly you don't actually have any answers for my arguments (which is why you dismiss them as 'old and boring', but don't actually reply to them).

One of the problems, as I'm sure you realise but prefer not to discuss, is the fact that standard orthodox trinitarian commentaries agree with my understanding of a number of these key passages - commentaries as early as Calvin and the other Reformers.

Fortigurn wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: Wallace is a professional Greek scholar who can articulate the rule in far better detail than myself. It is more important for you to read him than to read me. Anything I write will be dismissed as the view of a 'cultist' in any case. Having said which, I have already summed up in my own words how this rule applies. You just haven't read my post.

Yes I read your post - but for those who do not wish to read the enitre Wallace paper should heed his Conclusion on the matter stated in this source by Wallace, even you Mr. Fortigurn at the end of this page frame:

Not only did I heed his conclusion, but I recommended it to you, and summarised it for you.

In return, I'll invite you to heed his introduction:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

Do you agree with him here? He is saying what I have said earlier - that over the years, the number of trinitarian 'proof texts' offered by trinitarian scholarship has diminished significantly, until now we are down to only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts.

B. W. wrote:There is whole historical record prior — before the text were ever codified, before the New Testament letters were complied, and yes before the modern 'best' text. These came from the years 69 to 160 AD, the sub-apostolic age. How come the authors of these records never taught or believed as you nor did they affirm the modern day attacks on who Jesus is? These people were butchered and killed for their beliefs and yet the record stands on what they believed and taught.

Fortigurn wrote:Could you show me the evidence from these texts which you believe supports your view?

Fortigurn wrote:I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoratative by standard trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fring, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

B. W. wrote:What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

Fortigurn wrote:No I do not believe that Christ became Deity when he was begotten. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him. He was a man, not Deity.

B. W. wrote: Mr. Fortigurn, I would like to thank you again for proving that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the Flesh and proving without doubt that Jesus is the second person of the trinity

B. W. wrote: God states clearly that He will not give His glory to another and that “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” Numbers 23:19 - RSV

B. W. wrote: Yes, Mr. Fortigurn, you have done it again — proved that Jesus Christ was God truly manifest in the flesh. As the bible proclaims — We see that Jesus created the universe and worlds! That Salvation is by Jesus and no other! Jesus is the First and the Last! If not, Mr Fortigurn, GOD LIED!!!!

God cannot lie — Jesus is other than what you think him to be!

Can you join in and sing?

Revelation 19:1 — “After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God.” NKJV

Oh, I forgot, your superior text omits 'belong to our God' in this verse!

Fortigurn wrote:I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoritative by standard Trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fringe, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

B. W. wrote:Here is good scientific answer for all:

Please do the following experiment as well as the audience reading this thread and you'll discover true textual criticism:

One last word on textual criticism argument: Here is a simple experiment one should do as long as they do not have a problem with writing or marking a bible. Go out a purchase a bible that has text notes that state — oldest text omit verse or word or translate word this way or that.

For example, in the NKJV or NIV etc., it states for John 7:53 through John 8:11 that these verses were not in the original text. Therefore, take a black magic marker and cross these verses out. Do this everywhere, where it says, not included in oldest text or the most reliable text. Where it says to add a word in exchange for another — blot out the typed word and write in the old text, most reliable word for it.

After doing this for the New Testament and do so for the old. Something amazing occurs after this. You see what is taken out! Then you discover that references to miracles in Mark 16:9-20 are gone, the woman caught in adultery story is gone showing Jesus forgiving sins, and in other passages you find the deity of Christ is called into question as well as also deleted. You will see other strange interpretations not seen before.

Rather strange in the light of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Colossians chapter two warning of a Gnostic version creeping into the church as well as other strange teachings. He warns of these things elsewhere too as does the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2)

Next honestly examine, does this new, better, modern text version, with all the text and certain words blotted out in black marker and new words added teach any of the things the Apostles warn about?

The answer, I'll leave for you to decide. Truly, a tree is known by its fruit.

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

I refer you back to John 1:1. We've been thru this before many times but you tend to forget that which you do not like.

Yet you still do not comprehend what they say.

Tell me, what do you think is the difference between 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' and why is Jesus the only one to be called both?

Please do not concern yourself with my well-being. Whether or not Arians understood it to mean Jesus and God are separate beings is their business not mine. The fact that you attribute their postion to mine is questionable at best.

The way I see it is exactly the way John wrote it:

1 John 1:1,2,3 (NJB) wrote: 1:1In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

This is not Arian, it is Christian, but I do not fault you for not comprehending it.

I didn't say you invented it.

What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.

And you are the one to tell me what my Christological position is?

This is from a person who believes Jesus was just a man, professes both God and Jesus as his Lord and God (page 17 of this thread I believe) yet does not see how this is idolatry? By your own admission, not only are you not Christian, you don't even practice a monotheistic religion. Please, no lectures from you sir.

B. W. wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:In return, I'll invite you to heed his introduction:

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann's oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as 'God' the New Testament still exercises great restraint.” [2]

The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. [3]

As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.

Do you agree with him here? He is saying what I have said earlier - that over the years, the number of trinitarian 'proof texts' offered by trinitarian scholarship has diminished significantly, until now we are down to only half a dozen allegedly explicit texts.

Yes I do heed it - so what is the point? We both agree?

As for texts in question - you do not need Sharpes rule to see what the bible really says. 'God and our' says what it says with or without Sharpe's rule.

Is this why you brought up Greek Grammar?

B. W. wrote:Mr. Fortigurn, if we listen to you then - GOD LIED!!! By having a mere man, no matter how empowered, to rule a reign as a god violates the 1'st Commandment:

Duet. 5:7-11 "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” RSV

Your doctrine — violates God's Law because a man, a man empowered as prophet or any manner, cannot save as Jesus did — only God can. If you declare that Jesus was a man — Jesus lied.

If you say he was begotten to be empowered as a great man so He can rule like God or in God's Place — God Lied.

If you think Jesus spoke in Isaiah — then He was not begotten or even if you claim Isaiah use of the word 'Lord' is wrong — you make both God and Jesus a lair. If you think this was empowered speech proclaiming Jesus as your doctrine makes him out to be — you make God a lair.