What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.

So you reckon there is no room for a composite unity in echad?

Not in the Shema.

If you do then you are saying to me and to our readers that you believe “one” is modifying a collective noun.

 

[Johann]

I hold to only one creed

What is your creed, the Shema?

 

[Matthias]

Echad as in a complex unity, or an absolute yachid?

Are you able to count in Hebrew? If so, then you’re aware that echad is the cardinal number “1”.

 

[Matthias]

What is your creed, the Shema?

I’ve stated on a number of occasions that it is. As that isn’t clear in your mind, I will state it unequivocally here.

My creed - the only creed which I hold to - is the Shema.

 

[Matthias]

In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)
With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh_1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare Joh_1:3; Joh_17:5; 1Jn_1:1; Eph_1:4; Pro_8:23; Psa_90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, Joh_8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in Joh_1:3, Joh_1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (Joh_8:44; 1Jn_2:7, 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Gen_1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton). See on Col_1:15. This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. “The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby” (Lange). “Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word” (Godet).
Vincent

You said Messiah was a "created being"...correct?

Yes. It is correct that I said the Messiah is a “created being”.

I didn’t think it was necessary to say that trinitarianism teaches that the Messiah is not a created being. I’m thinking now that maybe it is, for your benefit and possibly the benefit of others.

In trinitarianism, the Messiah is not a created being.

I should probably add, even at the risk of muddying the water, that in binitarianism - and in a form of unitarianism - the Messiah is not a created being.

 

[Johann]

If you do then you are saying to me and to our readers that you believe “one” is modifying a collective noun.

It would seem you believe YHVH but that Y'hoshuwa is just a created being? Correct?

 

[Johann]

Yes. It is correct that I said the Messiah is a “created being”.

And yet I have shown you the opposite @Matthias, you hold to the same belief as AJ, and many others here, why is that? If Messiah is just a created being, you don't have a Savior.
You place our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, in the rank of created angels, beings.
I would submit to you Messiah is, haya, not was, pros ton pros with YHVH BEFORE there was any beginning.
What say you?

 

[Matthias]

It would seem you believe YHVH but that Y'hoshuwa is just a created being? Correct?

It’s Grandparents Day in the USA. Is it also in South Africa? I’m stepping out to celebrate the day by having dinner (lunch, if you prefer) with my wife, daughter, son-in-law and grandson. It is a great blessing from Yahweh for a man to see his children’s children.

Yahweh is not a created being. Jesus is a created being.

Trinitarianism (binitarianism and a form of unitarianism) says that is not so.

 

[Matthias]

And yet I have shown you the opposite @Matthias, you hold to the same belief as AJ, and many others here, why is that? If Messiah is just a created being, you don't have a Savior.
You place our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, in the rank of created angels, beings.
I would submit to you Messiah is, haya, not was, pros ton pros with YHVH BEFORE there was any beginning.
What say you?

I say that you cannot hear me and I’ll resume posting later this afternoon or evening, God willing.

 

[Johann]

My creed - the only creed which I hold to - is the Shema.

...and not the "copy and paste" infallible B'rit Chadasha? New Covenant/Testament for the readers...Correct?

 

[Johann]

I say that you cannot hear me and I’ll resume posting later this afternoon or evening, God willing.

I hear you loud and clear, it is you that don't oznayim me @Matthias!
Let's summorize
You hold to the Shema, to the exclusion of the New Testament/Covenant, a "copy and paste" of our infallible holy writ to the Torah.
You believe Messiah is a "created angel or being"
Just like AJ, you ask a lot of questions, but when probed, there is error.
You need to repent, and come back to your Mashiach @Matthias

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Oh, what verse says that God made Jesus God?

The problem with trinitarian claims is that there is not one shred of a Scriptural sentence that say anything like what your dogma is. This is God's word, 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' Simple. Direct. Irrefutable. Even a trinitarian can understand it.

Instead of accepting this simple and direct statement as the logical proof text destroying the illogical, inherently contradictory dogma that the Pagan 3-is-1-ism is, you jettison logic, itself. Jettison God's Logos and invoke mystical dualism and artificial synthesis (which is why you always resort to posting many verses. It's in here somewhere, if you believed it you would see it, hopefully something sticks), then have the audacity to claim I am arguing against God's words in both old and new testaments that testify of the fact that the Father alone is God.

It bears repeating; by quoting God's work directly, without imposing my own interpretation AND recognizing the logical implications of verses that destroy your dogma, you have the audacity to claim I am arguing against God's words in both old and new testaments! Such idolatry is seen nowhere else.

Realizing this will incur yet another fallacy charge....

I know why you are named wrangler.
Sadly, we give your act behind that title meaning as we reply over and over to what is mere denial. With no substance.
God is Jesus.
What is creator and creation.
You do not know.

You know, denial. And twisting words.

''Wrangler''.

If we keep talking, you'll keep wrangling.

Until you don't.

 

[Johann]

Are you able to count in Hebrew? If so, then you’re aware that echad is the cardinal number “1”.

Echad is not synonymous with yachid, or can be used interchangeably, I know you are going to kick against the pricks here, so here....

Answering Judaism: Echad: What does the Singer say?

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

A direct statement please. Where does God make Jesus God?


Can you provide scripture that is not inference, or suggestion, stating what you assert is a biblical fact?


Well that's a new one..."God had to be Jesus"....not heard that one before.

The OP is asking why Jesus had to be God? I can give you many reasons why Jesus could not be God...

1) God is immortal and cannot die. Mere mortals cannot kill God. If Jesus didn't really die, then the redemption did not take place. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

2) God appointed Jesus as the only "Mediator between God and man"....if Jesus is God, then we would need a mediator between us and him too. (1 Timothy 2:5-6) Sin is the barrier.

3) If God became a man and offered his life for what Adam did, then the payment was way too much. Redemption means offering an exact amount to redeem something that was lost. The value of what is offered has to equal the value of what was lost....Adam lost perfect sinless life for all his children, so Jesus had to be the equivalent of Adam...a perfect, sinless human.....not more, not less. to buy back what Adam lost for them. He did not have to be God to redeem mankind.
1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 47
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. . . . So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. . . . The first man is from the earth.....the second man is from heaven."

4) There is not a single unequivocal statement in the whole Bible that declares that Jesus is in any way equal to his Father, who is also his God...even in heaven.
"The one who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Revelation 3:12) Can God have a God in heaven? Is he worshipping himself?

5) Jesus said that "the Father is greater than I am". (John 14:28) Is God greater than God?

6) John 1:18 says that "No man has ever seen God" but thousands of people saw Jesus.

7) Mark 12:28-31..."One of the scribes came up and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4, and the Jewish Tanakh has the divine name there...twice. "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one".

8) Jesus prayed in John 17:3..."And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself.

9) 1 Corinthians 8:5-6...Paul said of the apostles, collectively....."For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."
The apostles knew who their God was because Jesus taught them about him.

10) John 6:38...Jesus said....
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
If Jesus is God then he would be doing his own will. How can one equal part of God have a different will?

Direct statements....10 reasons why Jesus can't be God.

''You are legion''.

 

[Johann]

I should probably add, even at the risk of muddying the water, that in binitarianism - and in a form of unitarianism - the Messiah is not a created being.

Do you read the Kainos Diatheke graphoi? The New Testament?

 

[Peterlag]

The mother was human, but the father was God Almighty.....I'll just leave it to your little grey cells to figure out the kind of offspring that produced.

Well, coming out of a woman doing business in a dyper for a couple of years would probably be a little boy Mary gave birth to.

 

[Peterlag]

You've been given scriptures but aren't "hearing" them.

No the Scriptures I have been given is that Jesus is God. Not why he had to be God.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Are you suggesting that Satan before his fall existed together with God in eternity past ???

Are you suggesting God only existed with the Genesis narrative, "'In the beginning...' ?

Sin entered the world through one man.

Where did sin come from?
Hint. Heaven!

Know why?
Hint.
SATAN sinned against God! Leading 1/3rd of his angels in a war against God in a coupe attempt.

 

[Johann]

It’s Grandparents Day in the USA. Is it also in South Africa? I’m stepping out to celebrate the day by having dinner (lunch, if you prefer) with my wife, daughter, son-in-law and grandson.

Enjoy the day and shalom to you and family brother.

 

[Peterlag]

It's all over the bible, I can't think of an isolated verse that says it explicitly, though that doesn't mean there isn't one. But the bible says explicitly that He was God manifest in the flesh. So we have God and we have the flesh that He came in. The scripture says "a body thou hast prepared for me." He was both son of God and son of Man, also explicitly stated in the bible, so your argument that He couldn't have been more than one thing at the same time doesn't hold water. (Also reasoning this way, for example, a person certainly can be a fireman, say, while at the same time also being a parent, while also being a board member of a charity, and perhaps also being a student at night classes...busy life, lol.)

There were things Jesus could only be/do because He was divine, eg, to begin with, His sinlessness, as well as the scope and innumerable miracles that He performed including raising the dead, and Himself rising from the dead.......and there were things that He also had to be human in order to undertake, eg, He had to be human in order to be forerunner for humans, and in order to bear our human weakness and sins on the cross...He had to be human in order to shed His blood.

Scripture says Jesus as the second Adam was "the Lord from heaven." The second Adam, therefore a MAN, was the Lord from heaven...how much more explicit could that be? Yet we still need eyes to see it.....are you born again?

You do see the difference between being a fireman and a husband from being a man and a horse... right?