Sure. That doesn't mean he was God. The Jewish meshiyah (anointed) was a man of God, a king sent by God. Not divine.
It is no mere truism that John voices when he insists that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
No, of course not. The whole purpose of John's Gospel was to portray Christ as divine. But he could do that given the break that occurred between Judaism and Christianity by that time (cf Jamnia), and that Christianity needed to establish a firm divine authority outside of Judaism.
At the end of the 1st century, John's aim was to show that Jesues was no longer considered a Jewish messiah, but God incarnate, a temple who raised himself rather than an anoninted Jewish wariror king whom God raised.
Paul speaks of God as “sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”
The term "son of God" did not imply a divine creature in Judaism. It is encounters on numerous occasions in the Old Testament as a title bestowed on mortal or angelic beings (Adam, angels, kings, David, etc.).
Also the verse doesn't say "his own" but of himself. The reflexive nature of the verb doe snot imply "own." In has been lost in English to a large extent where it used to be used more often as in other European languages. Thus Newton writes "I procured myself a prism."
Paul's' suggestion that Christ only appeared in the "likeness" of sinful flesh must have really scored him points with the Gnostics big time.
1Timothy 3:16, “, believed on in the world, received up into glory
This verse is well known because it is one of those verses where fraudulent alteration of the Bible is evident. The fraud was actually discovered by an English Protestant Bible scholar in the 17th or 18th century. He noticed that in the 5th century Greek manuscript the ligature for God (in Greek Θς) has a line through "O" of a different ink. Closer examination show this to be true.
Apparently someone changed the Greek word for "he" (in Greek Oς) by penning a line through "O" and making it into a ligature for God. Naturally, the meaning of the whole verse changes drastically when one reads:
Paul writes of Jesus in Colossians 2:9, “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
"Who is the image (Greek: icon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15). An image is not the thing.
”In addition, when Jesus’ contemporaries called him “Lord;’ they were employing a term that was used over six thousand times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to God or “the Lord.”
The word "Lord" (Gr: kyrios) is also used for non divine beings. Anyone who is superior in rank is called kyrios.
When asked if he had seen Abraham, Jesus responded by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:57—58)
Of course John would do that. The context in which his Gospel was written at the end of the first century is consistent with his attempts to equate Christ with God. I just find it curious that the other Apostles didn't notice that "minor" statement (for which Jesus wouldhave been stoned).
But that was not one of the charges brought up against Jesus. In fact, John omits the whole going before the Sanhedrin part.
The prophet Isaiah affirms Jesus as the king who reigns forever—a role only God could fill: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end” (Isa. 9:7).
Jews will disagree, based on the context, that it has anything to do with Jesus. Also, the Septuagint has nothing even close in Isa 9:6. It reads as follows:
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him"
No God, no mighty Father, nothing.
John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.”
John 14:28 "for the Father is greater than I.
Heb. 1:1-4, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son
Again, here God spoke by the prophets and by his Son...again the title "son" of God (common in the OT) does not imply divinity in Judaism, but a favorite of God, and the Book of Hebrews is addressed to the Jews, as they understood the terms.
Using your own quote "(Luke 2:52), “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." God owuld nto have to increase in favor of God.
I will add also that Jesus calls the Father his God (cf John 20:17) God calling God God?
2. Closely connected with this explicit claim of unity with God is the expression of limitations upon this relationship. John 5:19..."
There goes your whole "economic subordination" theory out the window.
The doctrine of kenosis emphasizes the divine initiative
As regards kenosis, the orthodox Church sees it in a different light (interpretation) form the Portestant world.
In fact, the Protestant version of the doctrine is heretical in the eyes of the Church because it states that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes in order to beocme man.
The Protestant version was specifically condemned by the Catholic Church in 1951, as denying Christ's divinity while on earth, and compared it to Docetism.
But then, in my opinion,the Pope should have condemned St. Paul for Docetism as well (see Rom 8:3). :)
There's that doe snot term again. I somehow think BD and MM have a great deal more knowledge and overall understanding about Christian doctrine - doe snot not withstanding. You're a broken, offkey record Kosta pal. Might be time for lights-outs. Nite nite.