@OneGodtheFather, the question is flagged with "trinity", but I think the point stands whether one is uinitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, or whatever. There is "god" as a concept, a being with perfect character, and there are those that meet or aspire to that ideal. Jesus met that ideal. But Adam and Eve were also created "in the image of God". It doesn't mean that they were God (yet), but they (and all of humanity) had all the attributes that gave them the potential to "be" God, to develop his perfect character.

@OneGodtheFather: Uh, I don't think I have "image of God" as equal to "image of the Father." Paul makes clear in Romans 8 and elsewhere, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" (v. 29). Believers bear the image of God in our having been created to be rational, emotional, volitional, and moral creatures. Once born again, believers through the process of sanctification are being conformed to the image of Christ. That image is a melding of Christ's character into our humanity.

@rhetorician What does 'God' mean then for you in a line like Col 1:15?

Oddly, not one of the verses you used to defend Jesus sitting next to the Father is valid - they all say, 'sitting next to God'. Why? For the same reason Jesus addresses his God as God - because Jesus is not - that's why he sits next to God.

@OneGodtheFather: For me, the word "God" in Col 1:15 brings to mind the name of God that was given to Moses; namely, YHWH, or Yahweh ("I am that I am"). It also brings to mind the many compound names of God (e.g., Jehovah Jireh, Elohim, El Elyon, Adonia, El Olam, Rapha, Nissi, MakaddeshKem, Shalom, Shaphat, Sabaoth, Zidkenu, Raah, Hosenu, Gibbor, Jah Jehovahm, Shammah, and more!) Oh, by the way, you'll have to forgive "Doubting Thomas," who when he felt the wounds of Jesus in a post-resurrection appearance proclaimed with great exuberance, "My Lord and my God."

@rhetorician So you're saying Jesus is the image of Yahweh?

@rhetorician I don't follow your last sentence - can you rephrase?

@OneGodtheFather: You mean Thomas's words ("My Lord and my God")? Quite simply, Thomas recognized who Jesus was upon seeing him resurrected; namely, his Lord and his God. I get the feeling, my friend, there is nothing, no line of reasoning, not even 2000 years of church history, that will shake your belief that Jesus is not fully God. Am I correct in this? Don

2000 years of church choosing to hold their Creeds before the bible as confirmed thus far in this Q christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/92009/… Prob. more like 1800 years before the wheels fell off.

@rhetorician I'm trying to understand how that relates to your answer to this question. But are you saying Jesus is the image of Yahweh? If so, then what does 'Yahweh' mean to you?

@rhetorician FWIW, I discuss John 20:28 extensively here christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83167/… . Enjoy! ;)

@rhetorician I actually think John 20:28 is key to understanding John's Gospel. If you get it, you get the Gospel. If you don't, you miss the point of the Gospel. But if you think Thomas is calling Jesus God ontologically, then it seems to follow he's calling Jesus the Father, since that was Jesus' whole lesson in John 12 and 14. If you see me, you see the Father.

@rhetorician As far as the history, there's no Trinitarianism for at least the first 200 years of church history, perhaps 300. Any objections to standard dogma are then brutally repressed. Even with the Reformation, Catholic monopolies are simply replaced with Protestant ones, by and large. If you didn't agree, generally you were expelled from the country. So yes, Trinitarianism has ~1600 years of pretty bad repression on its side, but that's not an achievement I personally would brag about.

@OneGodtheFather: You make some good points. I'll give you that. To me, your comment about 1600 years of repression sounds a bit conspiratorial. Cards on the table: With which of the following belief systems do you most closely identify?: Mormonism (Latter-day Saints), Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Armstrongism, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unification Church, Unity School of Christianity, Scientology (Dianetics). (learnreligions.com/…)

@rhetorician It is a 'conspiracy' that Trinitarians repressed other belief systems for ~1600 years? That's a matter of very well documented public record. I'm a Biblical Unitarian, in the tradition of Newton, Locke, and Milton, Socinius and Servetus (the latter murdered by Calvinists - is that a conspiracy too?).

@OneGodtheFather No, Jesus is "NOT" God the Father, especially not at John 14 or any place else in the Bible. Phillip ask Jesus to show us the Father, vs8. Vs9, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father: The point is the fact that the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. John 1:1,18; 10:30; 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3. John 14:16, "And I will ask the Father," How can Jesus be the Father when He makes a distinction of persons between Him and His Father?

@OneGodtheFather: I crafted a new conclusion in my answer. Thought you should know. Don

@Mr.Bond Well, I agree with your last sentence (and so against the modalists, basically).

@rhetorician Why do Trinitarians on a site like this often feel the need to call people who disagree with them heretics? It's a move exactly in line with the sort of repression I was talking about above - designed to intimidate and silence people. On a site like this, it doesn't really work and does nothing for the conversation. But FWIW, Jesus himself says "The Father is greater than I" and "Why do you call me good? Only God is good."

@rhetorician As far as the substance of the conclusion, how do you go from 'Jesus is the Lamb of God' (correct, as your cited verses show) to 'Jesus must be God'? It seems like a non sequitur to me. 'Lamb of God' itself sounds like something distinct from God.