What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Aunty Jane]

I'm off to bed.....will continue tomorrow.....

 

[quietthinker]

We assume the same thing since he was dwelling in the spirit realm with his God and Father. He did not become a son and God did not become a Father with his human birth.
As an eternal being, the Father has always existed, but at some point in his existence he decided to become a Father...and he brought forth a son, his "firstborn". How does a human father bring fourth a son? Does he create him out of thin air? Or is the son of the same substance as his father? If God is a spirit as he says in his word, then Jesus was also a spirit......in the same "form" as his Father.


Is that what you think "create" means? When God creates do you envision a magician or a purposeful craftsman. Was it "magic" or did God bring forth the raw materials by means of his great power? He permitted his son to fashion those raw materials into all that exists.
Where did matter come from?


We believe this too....God transferred the lifeforce of his son into the womb of Mary in order to become a human.....but unrelated to the sinner Adam. Jesus needed to be the exact equivalent of Adam when he was first created in order to redeem the human race.


Where does it say that Jesus has always been in existence? He was changed at his virgin birth, but I still see no evidence that he was God. It says that this was made possible by God's spirit, which is not a person but the administration of God's power.


No they do not as I have reiterated several times......agency means that something is done through someone else....Proverbs 8:30-31 tells us that the son was God's master worker, at his side in the creative process.


My goodness...if that is what you think, any wonder you don't understand anything we say.... Where do you get these weird ideas?
How does anyone know how God creates, or how he brings things into being from seemingly nowhere? What was in existence before God created anything? What is your assumption about that?

Imagination can lead people in all kinds of directions which is why there is scripture.....let it tell you what to believe...not just snatches but the whole book...its all written by one author, and its all one story from start to finish. If I asked you to do a book review how would you put the Bible's overall narrative into a few simple sentences? What is the story in a nutshell? Can you tell me?

Moses and the Prophets......this is what God is like!
Jesus.....this is what God is like!

Who has the final word?..... well, as I read it, Hebrews puts it like this:-
Hebrews 1:1-3
'In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,sustaining all things by his powerful word.....'

So what's the difference? Jesus didn't have the stunted view of God which the Prophets had.

 

[Charlie24]

We assume the same thing since he was dwelling in the spirit realm with his God and Father. He did not become a son and God did not become a Father with his human birth.
As an eternal being, the Father has always existed, but at some point in his existence he decided to become a Father...and he brought forth a son, his "firstborn". How does a human father bring fourth a son? Does he create him out of thin air? Or is the son of the same substance as his father? If God is a spirit as he says in his word, then Jesus was also a spirit......in the same "form" as his Father.


Is that what you think "create" means? When God creates do you envision a magician or a purposeful craftsman. Was it "magic" or did God bring forth the raw materials by means of his great power? He permitted his son to fashion those raw materials into all that exists.
Where did matter come from?


We believe this too....God transferred the lifeforce of his son into the womb of Mary in order to become a human.....but unrelated to the sinner Adam. Jesus needed to be the exact equivalent of Adam when he was first created in order to redeem the human race.


Where does it say that Jesus has always been in existence? He was changed at his virgin birth, but I still see no evidence that he was God. It says that this was made possible by God's spirit, which is not a person but the administration of God's power.


No they do not as I have reiterated several times......agency means that something is done through someone else....Proverbs 8:30-31 tells us that the son was God's master worker, at his side in the creative process.


My goodness...if that is what you think, any wonder you don't understand anything we say.... Where do you get these weird ideas?
How does anyone know how God creates, or how he brings things into being from seemingly nowhere? What was in existence before God created anything? What is your assumption about that?

Imagination can lead people in all kinds of directions which is why there is scripture.....let it tell you what to believe...not just snatches but the whole book...its all written by one author, and its all one story from start to finish. If I asked you to do a book review how would you put the Bible's overall narrative into a few simple sentences? What is the story in a nutshell? Can you tell me?

The father/child thing is not a good analogy, a child does not come from another form of existence to enter into another form of existence as did Christ.

It seems to me there is now agreeing that before didn't exist. All of a sudden I find little disagreeing.

And yes, I can give you a review of the Scripture in two sentences.

The first two chapters of Gen. is the creation, man in perfection, until chapter 3 where he falls into sin.

From Gen. 3 through Rev. 22 is the story of God's plan of redemption for man.

 

[RLT63]

I have no idea why that offends the trinitarians here....that God created his "only begotten son" means that he Fathered a son...what is so terrible about that? "created" is not a dirty word....it is what God does...he is THE Creator of all things, including his "firstborn"...if Jesus is a "firstborn" then we should look in the Bible for other "sons of God"....do we find them? Yes we do, but none of them are as unique as their Commander. "Only begotten" means that this firstborn son was his Father's only direct creation because the scriptures tell us plainly that all things came into existence "through" that one.....the "master workman" by his Father's side in Proverbs 8:30-31....the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26.

What does it mean that Jesus is God’s only begotten son? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Wrangler]

True, but it does make him man.

Yes, Jesus is a man.
He has set a day when he is going to judge the world with justice, and he will use a man he has appointed to do this. God has given proof to everyone that he will do this by bringing that man back to life.”
Acts 17:31

I've come to believe in adoptionism. For Scripture is clear that Jesus was not always the son of god; there was a day before 'today' which was written by David about 1,000 BC. And 'will be' is yet to come.
God never said to any of his angels,
“You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.”
And God never said to any of his angels,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son.”
Hebrews 1:5

This makes 'The Son of God' a title, not merely a statement of biological relationship. Adoptionism applies to us as well. Colossians 3:12 points out that we too are chosen by God. John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of God. So, while Jesus was the only son of God, as all firstborns are, he is no longer the only son of God. This is the theological inheritance the Bible speaks of. Jesus is one of ‘us’ (teaching us to pray to God as a brother to our father), not one of ‘them’ (pray to me or to F, S & HS).

Jesus even talked about what makes us his brothers is NOT biology. Jesus replied, “My mother and my brothers are all those who hear God’s word and obey it.” Luke 8:21

 

[Charlie24]

What does it mean that Jesus is God’s only begotten son? | GotQuestions.org

Yes, Jesus is a man.
He has set a day when he is going to judge the world with justice, and he will use a man he has appointed to do this. God has given proof to everyone that he will do this by bringing that man back to life.”
Acts 17:31

I've come to believe in adoptionism. For Scripture is clear that Jesus was not always the son of god; there was a day before 'today' which was written by David about 1,000 BC. And 'will be' is yet to come.
God never said to any of his angels,
“You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father.”
And God never said to any of his angels,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son.”
Hebrews 1:5

This makes 'The Son of God' a title, not merely a statement of biological relationship. Adoptionism applies to us as well. Colossians 3:12 points out that we too are chosen by God. John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of God. So, while Jesus was the only son of God, as all firstborns are, he is no longer the only son of God. This is the theological inheritance the Bible speaks of. Jesus is one of ‘us’ (teaching us to pray to God as a brother to our father), not one of ‘them’ (pray to me or to F, S & HS).

Jesus even talked about what makes us his brothers is NOT biology. Jesus replied, “My mother and my brothers are all those who hear God’s word and obey it.” Luke 8:21

What I would like to know from the other side of the isle, who don't believe Christ is deity, don't believe that Christ existed from eternity past with the Father, where does Christ come into the picture?

If you say Christ was created and came into existence at a point of time, what is that timeline? Exactly where does Christ come from and at what point?

I think this will get us to a point where we can concentrate on the root of the differences we have.

 

[APAK]

Most of the questions you present here cannot be answered. The Scripture takes no effort to explain it, which means it's not meant for us to understand, or we in this mortal body are not capable of understanding.

There is some indication that all these things will be answered at the point of the resurrection, when the mortal puts on the immortal. With this change the unknown will be known.

You have to admit though Charlie there is at least one gaping hole in the Trinity doctrine not spoken about much, one area that is quickly downplayed when someone like me questions it. There is never any reasonable resolution or discussion.

It is about the the other bookend to the so-called incarnation of God -process of a divine conception of a human male as a divine human person, not a human person.

Where is the doctrine of Christ's (god-man) reincarnation back to his former state as God again, upon his true death, separation of his spirit form his body, and after his resurrection and ascension back to heaven??!! I do not jest at all. This has to be an eye sore on its doctrine.

And reincarnation is the exact term to use to make it consistent and compatible with this first term used of the incarnation part of the Trinity doctrine.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that there is nothing formally noted about it because it would cause the lay-person to become utterly confused and to discount the Trinity hypothesis/ sketchy theory completely. No Trinitarian wants to hear that their Christ re-incarnated himself back to his former so-called heavenly state as before he was born on earth, now do they?

Maybe I should create a thread on it...

 

[Charlie24]

You have to admit though Charlie there is at least one gaping hole in the Trinity doctrine not spoken about much, one area that is quickly downplayed when someone like me questions it. There is never any reasonable resolution or discussion.

It is about the the other bookend to the so-called incarnation of God -process of a divine conception of a human male as a divine human person, not a human person.

Where is the doctrine of Christ's (god-man) reincarnation back to his former state as God again, upon his true death, separation of his spirit form his body, and after his resurrection and ascension back to heaven??!! I do not jest at all. This has to be an eye sore on its doctrine.

And reincarnation is the exact term to use to make it consistent and compatible with this first term used of the incarnation part of the Trinity doctrine.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that there is nothing formally noted about it because it would cause the lay-person to become utterly confused and to discount the Trinity hypothesis/ sketchy theory completely. No Trinitarian wants to hear that their Christ re-incarnated himself back to his former so-called heavenly state as before he was born on earth, now do they?

Maybe I should create a thread on it...

When Christ ascended into heaven, He had a spiritual body of flesh, yes, a spiritual body of flesh.

That body could eat food, it could walk through closed doors, it could disappear and reappear on will.

Who's to say that Christ in this same body that He ascended with is not at this very moment sitting at the right hand of the Father in that same body?

It's not a mortal body of flesh, which is energized by blood, it's an immortal body of flesh which is energized by the Spirit of God.

 

[quietthinker]

I'm off to bed.....will continue tomorrow.....

did you know that insects party on your blankets while you sleep?

 

[RLT63]

When Christ ascended into heaven, He had a spiritual body of flesh, yes, a spiritual body of flesh.

That body could eat food, it could walk through closed doors, it could disappear and reappear on will.

Who's to say that Christ in this same body that He ascended with is not at this very moment sitting at the right hand of the Father in that same body?

It's not a mortal body of flesh, which is energized by blood, it's an immortal body of flesh which is energized by the Spirit of God.

Yes. A body that believers will have one day.

 

[Charlie24]

did you know that insects party on your blankets while you sleep?

The ones that require a magnifying glass to see, or the bigger ones?

 

[Peterlag]

Why Jesus didn't have a sin nature.
Hebtews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

The OP question answered again.
Philippians 2:6-8 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Galatians 4:1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1 - English Standard Version

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

You say you're answering the question but I don't see how Philippians 2:6-8 tells us why Jesus had to be God.

 

[RLT63]

You have to admit though Charlie there is at least one gaping hole in the Trinity doctrine not spoken about much, one area that is quickly downplayed when someone like me questions it. There is never any reasonable resolution or discussion.

It is about the the other bookend to the so-called incarnation of God -process of a divine conception of a human male as a divine human person, not a human person.

Where is the doctrine of Christ's (god-man) reincarnation back to his former state as God again, upon his true death, separation of his spirit form his body, and after his resurrection and ascension back to heaven??!! I do not jest at all. This has to be an eye sore on its doctrine.

And reincarnation is the exact term to use to make it consistent and compatible with this first term used of the incarnation part of the Trinity doctrine.

I have come to the conclusion over the years that there is nothing formally noted about it because it would cause the lay-person to become utterly confused and to discount the Trinity hypothesis/ sketchy theory completely. No Trinitarian wants to hear that their Christ re-incarnated himself back to his former so-called heavenly state as before he was born on earth, now do they?

Maybe I should create a thread on it...

I'm glad to see this discussion is respectful and civil.

 

[Mr E]

Maybe I should create a thread on it...

Please do! I have a flesh body of spirit.

 

[RLT63]

I asked a lot of questions a long time ago and continue to ask questions to this day....and the answers have been given within the framework of God’s original purpose for mankind on this earth.

He answered me in the scriptures......
the word “beginning” is the same in both Hebrew and Greek even though many try to make it mean something else. When we speak about a “beginning” in English, it is not an ambiguous word.....it’s the start of something. Can we agree on that?
Yahweh is “King of eternity” and the only living being in existence who was said to have an immortal existence.

Jesus is “King of kings”, (earthly kings) but before his mission as a human, he was not immortal, otherwise he could not give his life for mankind. He had to be 100% mortal human in order to die for us, which rules out his being God incarnate.....the reason why Jesus could not be God incarnate. Immortals cannot die.

The Father simply transferred the lifeforce of his spirit son into the womb of the earthly host that he had chosen to raise his son in human form. We have to understand why he needed to be born as a human child and raised as a devout Jew.

We can confuse immortality with everlasting life....but they are not the same at all. Giving both humans and angels everlasting life (obviously through different means as they are different lifeforms) we see that God provided the means for life to continue in the heavenly realm as well as on earth. It also means that God can terminate their lives if they abuse their free will, as satan and the angels as well as the humans he has managed to corrupt, will experience in the future. But “immortality” is literally “the power of an indestructible life”.....nothing can kill an immortal.

Initially, only God was immortal, but as a reward for serving their God faithfully to their death, both the son and his elect are granted immortal life in heaven, given a higher form of life than any other living things....except of course God himself. He will always remain the Sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. And Jesus will always be the King of kings because the ones who rule with him in heaven, even though they too are kings, will be subject to him and his Father during the rulership of his kingdom. (Revelation 20:6)

If Jesus tells us himself that he has a God, even in heaven (Revelation 3:12) and that he is “the beginning of God’s creation” then we can believe him. (Revelation 3:14) Can’t we?

Did God die when Jesus died on the cross? The answer depends on how we understand the meaning of the word die. To die does not mean to go out of existence. Death is separation. Physical death is when the soul-spirit separates from the physical body. So, in that sense, yes, God died, because Jesus was God in human form, and Jesus’ soul-spirit separated from His body (John 19:30). However, if by “death” we mean “a cessation of existence,” then, no, God did not die. For God to “die” in that sense would mean that He ceased to exist, and neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit will ever cease to exist. The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, left the body He temporarily inhabited on Earth, but His divine nature did not die, nor could it.

 

[Mr E]

Did God die when Jesus died on the cross? The answer depends on how we understand the meaning of the word die. To die does not mean to go out of existence. Death is separation. Physical death is when the soul-spirit separates from the physical body. So, in that sense, yes, God died, because Jesus was God in human form, and Jesus’ soul-spirit separated from His body (John 19:30). However, if by “death” we mean “a cessation of existence,” then, no, God did not die. For God to “die” in that sense would mean that He ceased to exist, and neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit will ever cease to exist. The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, left the body He temporarily inhabited on Earth, but His divine nature did not die, nor could it.

Very problematic theology that you should really take some time to think through. On one hand you are saying God can't really die (I agree btw) while at the same time you hold to the idea that Jesus is God and Jesus died. That would necessitate that Jesus didn't really die and it would make a mockery of his sacrifice. God didn't die in a sense. He either did, or didn't. You should settle that principle in your mind first.

The same goes for Jesus-- it's not like some sort of special condition or status where he had to have died in a physical, but not Divine way. He died how all men died-- he died. Anyone who dies, dies in a physical sense and their divine spirit returns to God. Jesus was no different in this regard.

 

[RLT63]

Very problematic theology that you should really take some time to think through. On one hand you are saying God can't really die (I agree btw) while at the same time you hold to the idea that Jesus is God and Jesus died. That would necessitate that Jesus didn't really die and it would make a mockery of his sacrifice. God didn't die in a sense. He either did, or didn't. You should settle that principle in your mind first.

The same goes for Jesus-- it's not like some sort of special condition or status where he had to have died in a physical, but not Divine way. He died how all men died-- he died. Anyone who dies, dies in a physical sense and their divine spirit returns to God. Jesus was no different in this regard.

Jesus died a physical death just like we all will. He gave up his spirit. John 19:30. No one took his life, he gave it. This is not hard to understand.

 

[Charlie24]

Please do! I have a flesh body of spirit.

1Cor. 15:42-44

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

The resurrected body that Christ had and we will have is a spiritual body with flesh and bones, no blood is mentioned.

That's because the resurrected body is now energized by the Spirit and not blood.

 

[Wrangler]

where does Christ come into the picture?

We measure time from that point. This is the year 2022 from when Christ comes into the picture. Because it is common knowledge, I’m not sure what your question is.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus died a physical death just like we all will. He gave up his spirit. John 19:30. No one took his life, he gave it. This is not hard to understand.

What is hard to understand is any claim of a death meaning anything other than totally dead in every way. Death is the antonym of life. Yet, to say physical death implies a contradiction, non-death in some manner, shape or form - other than figurative.