Here's your citation: the entire New Testament.

The passage Athanasius gave is fine.

Or how about this bit, from Isaiah 53, which is often alluded to by Christians as referring to Jesus Christ:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

And here’s your promised rebuttal. Recapitulating: Saying “you just don’t understand” is a terribly fallacious and arrogant argument regardless of field.

Matthew 5:17–20 and Revelation 2:23 are both part of the New Testament. There are a few others—Luke 12:51 is germain to this thread’s direction—but this is *deeply* boring to me at this stage in the game and the first of those citations brings in the entirety of the Old Testament which really makes it a 100% wash.

Saying “you just don’t understand” is a terribly fallacious and arrogant argument regardless of field.

Is it? If I say "I've never heard of particle X interacting with field Y!" and a physicist says "You must not have read Feynman's Z, or else you didn't undertand it" is not particularly fallacious and arrogant, let alone terribly fallacious and arrogant.

So let's be clear: When 1nickt said "First time I have ever heard the Christians' God described as "humble", he was boasting about his ignorance of Christian theology, which, of course, is typical atheist rhetoric.