What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

That’s an excellent presentation. What you’ve expressed here is precisely what I believe.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Geez...ease up man....it's a discussion.

Angry with me @Heart2Soul? Am I pressing your button? Lol!

No and No... gotta go.

 

[Matthias]

Sure.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It appears to me that you’re reading Jesus into the text, not out of the text.

“In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.”

Is that what you see (or hear) when you read John 1:1?

 

[RLT63]

The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

What do you mean by the modern Greek texts? The Byzantine? I thought scholars preferred the oldest texts (Alexandrian) because they were closer to the original and that's why it is rendered the birth.

 

[Heart2Soul]

I see, ease up, we want to learn to correctly cutting straight the D'var in a one or two sentence liner. Anything more than that, the nous is wandering.

I didn't read your post...it was WAY too long and as I said ease up it is a discussion. So keep it short and simple.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Emoji's is indicative of a person not sure how to deal with his/her opponent.

 

[Heart2Soul]

So, I am discussing, ease up with what? The scriptures?

On your lengthy posts.

 

[Wrangler]

He asked for scripture to back up my beliefs. I told him he should read Philippians 2.

My point stands. He asked you for a verse. You told him to go figure it out (that you narrowed the search to 1 chapter changes nothing.)

These are the games trinitarians must resort to. They cannot see the disconnect between any actual verse in Scripture to their dogma.

 

[Brakelite]

A mediator is a "go between" when two parties are at odds with each other. He facilitates communication between the two, so Jesus is the bridge that facilitates our communication with God.....our prayers must be delivered through Jesus.

What I said.

A mediator is a "go between" when two parties are at odds with each other. He facilitates communication between the two, so Jesus is the bridge that facilitates our communication with God.....our prayers must be delivered through Jesus.


No sorry, I cannot agree with that. At the transfiguration Peter, James and John saw Jesus in his glory. There was no shield then.


Read it in the Tanakh.....
"6 And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, ווַיַּֽעֲבֹ֨ר יְהֹוָ֥ה | עַל־פָּנָיו֘ וַיִּקְרָא֒ יְהֹוָ֣ה | יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֥ל רַח֖וּם וְחַנּ֑וּן אֶ֥רֶךְ אַפַּ֖יִם וְרַב־חֶ֥סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶֽת:"

It plainly states that it was "יְהֹוָ֔ה" and the setting here was when Moses received the Ten Commandments.....
Verses 4-6.....
"4 So he [Moses] hewed two stone tablets like the first ones, and Moses arose early in the morning and ascended Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and He called out in the name of the Lord."
On that occasion God came down in the cloud.....

Exodus 33:18-23 is when Moses asked to see God's glory....
"And he said: "Show me, now, Your glory!"

19 He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."

20 And He said, "You will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live."

21 And the Lord said: "Behold, there is a place with Me, and you shall stand on the rock. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה הִנֵּ֥ה מָק֖וֹם אִתִּ֑י וְנִצַּבְתָּ֖ עַל־הַצּֽוּר:

22 And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by.

23 Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back but My face shall not be seen."(Tanakh)
The physical protection of Moses was a concern to God....so he provided it.

So who was this? It says "the LORD" and it carries his name in the Hebrew text. We can speculate all we like, but the scripture says it was Yahweh.

Exactly. Jesus. LORD. As His Son, He inherited His Father's name... Character. I think you posted on this some time ago. Name reflects character. Are you suggesting the Son, the express image of the Father, was not of the same character and therefore not worthy of the same name? The name He proclaimed of Himself rebukes that idea.

 

[RLT63]

My point stands. He asked you for a verse. You told him to go figure it out (that you narrowed the search to 1 chapter changes nothing.)

These are the games trinitarians must resort to. They cannot see the disconnect between any actual verse in Scripture to their dogma.

I think the same can be said of others who support some other view. We all tend to have confirmation bias and look for scriptures and commentary that supports our views.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

We all tend to have confirmation bias and look for scriptures and commentary that supports our views.

The Holy Bible shapes my view.

It has cleansed me of bias.

 

[APAK]

Angry with me @Heart2Soul? Am I pressing your button? Lol!

Johann, you have your say as everyone does. Do not try to persuade, influence or press the Staff as if they don't hear you, and they do. And I'm not just defending H2S here. Walk in her shoes for a bit. She also has a life beyond these virtual walls we call chatrooms or threads.

And you know I will continue to listen to you and I have with my posts. I'm still reviewing your Dr. Brown clip(s) on the Deut 6:4 echad etc, and the links you sent me on the other threads, ,like the discussion of Memra (logos) etc.

If you have confidence in your faith and doctrines then thank God for it, and seek refinement or more spiritual knowledge through prayer and with other like-minded people, here and in your church.

It's a question of balanced thought and cooperation as in all these chat sites. And a little patience with folks goes a long way.

Great Day...I do like your country...been only to Durban and Cape Town with the Table Mountain as its backdrop when I was a little boy when apartheid was very active in the public square

 

[Mr E]

He had a Son who became a man. God said His Son is God. God begotten. You don't have to understand it. You don't have to explain it. You don't have to understand the mechanics of how God had a Son... But He did. And scripture is clear that He sent this Son to die. He couldn't die unless He became a mortal creature... Man. That's the gospel.

Not needing to understand and not being able to understand are two different things. I don't really know how a fax machine works and I don't really need to know how one works, but that doesn't mean it's unexplainable. The fact is that some people know how they work, or we simply never would have had the benefit of them. So too with any number of things.

I don't believe God died. If you believe what scripture tells us of an immortal (not mortal) and eternal (without beginning or end) God-- neither should you. And if you believe scripture that says- God is spirit (Jon 4:24) and God is not a man or a son of man-- that should settle the matter (Num 23:19). Spirit gives birth to spirit, flesh gives birth to flesh. Since the Father/God is spirit, so is the son of God-- spirit. It's your understanding of the nature of the son of God that is a stumbling block. The son of God is the sent one. Sent to the world and then clothed in mortal flesh- God with us, an anointing spirit upon the man Jesus. Jesus- son of man, the spirit within him- son of God.

 

[RLT63]

Your assertion about me is incorrect.

I don't see you as trying to force your views. You have been open to debate and very friendly.

 

[Helen]

What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

My old mum used to say…”ask a stupid question , and you’ll get a stupid answer “

it’s impossible to “make” Jesus God .
God said to Moses ‘I AM.’
Jesus said more than once ‘ I AM’.

No man can ‘make ‘ God or Jesus , anything!
HE IS.

 

[Wrangler]

I think the same can be said of others who support some other view. We all tend to have confirmation bias and look for scriptures and commentary that supports our views.

True. If someone asked me what verse says man was created in 6 day, both of us could specify a verse. If we were pressed to identify the verse that specifies what day Eve was created on, we ought to humbly admit there is no specific verse for that.

 

[Wrangler]

it’s impossible to “make” Jesus God .
God said to Moses ‘I AM.’
Jesus said more than once ‘ I AM’.

Lots of people say I am. Does that make them God also? If not, why not?

 

[Heart2Soul]

Johann, you have your say as everyone does. Do not try to persuade, influence or press the Staff as if they don't hear you, and they do. And I'm not just defending H2S here. Walk in her shoes for a bit. She also has a life beyond these virtual walls we call chatrooms or threads.

And you know I will continue to listen to you and I have with my posts. I'm still reviewing your Dr. Brown clip(s) on the Deut 6:4 echad etc, and the links you sent me on the other threads, ,like the discussion of Memra (logos) etc.

If you have confidence in your faith and doctrines then thank God for it, and seek refinement or more spiritual knowledge through prayer and with other like-minded people, here and in your church.

It's a question of balanced thought and cooperation as in all these chat sites. And a little patience with folks goes a long way.

Great Day...I do like your country...been only to Durban and Cape Town with the Table Mountain as its backdrop when I was a little boy when apartheid was very active in the public square

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I like how you expressed forums as a question of balanced thought and cooperation.
Have a blessed day...you have already been a blessing to my day.
And in conclusion: walking a mile in someone else's shoes could be extremely difficult...especially if their shoe size is different than yours....and, as Paul Harvey would say, that is the rest of the story, Good Day!

 

[Heart2Soul]

My point stands. He asked you for a verse. You told him to go figure it out (that you narrowed the search to 1 chapter changes nothing.)

These are the games trinitarians must resort to. They cannot see the disconnect between any actual verse in Scripture to their dogma.

Sometimes reading through the entire chapter gives you a better understanding of the content.

 

[Matthias]

I don't see you as trying to force your views. You have been open to debate and very friendly.

Thank you for your very kind words.

My personal philosophy on debating is that it is a lose-lose proposition for the debaters. When we take a debate posture we dig in our heels, harden our hearts, close our eyes and stop up our ears. We become invested in defeating our partner rather than loving our partner. It’s too easily turned into waging verbal warfare.

You may not agree with that, and it’s fine if you don’t. It’s my perspective from having been directly involved in debating at one time (I’ve given you insight about what my mind was like in that arena) and I’ve attended or watched more debates carried out by others than I can put an accurate number on at the moment.

I will still occasionally watch a debate online but I haven’t attended one in person in the past 15 years or so. It never fails to grieve my spirit when I do.

What I find far more productive is simply dialoging with people. I’m not trying to defeat - (Crush. Kill. Destroy.) - control, or manipulate anyone. I’m trying to reason with them and want them to reason with me. I find that approach mutually beneficial. I’m treating people the way I would like people to treat me.

Debate entrenches us. Dialog frees us to move, if persuaded.