What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

“Jesus is not a human person.”

This was the shock I received when I was JAT. It was delivered to me by my Baptist pastor - in a Bible study, not from the pulpit.

It has to be false. That’s what I thought then; that’s what I think now.

I changed. Trinitarian theology hasn’t. It can’t. It’s “stuck” with “Jesus is not a human person.”

 

[Matthias]

Here it is from a Baptist source @RLT63. (Dr. Craig isn’t the Baptist pastor who told me what trinitarianism theology says about Jesus.)

”There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”)

http://[URL]https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

[/URL]

 

[RLT63]

Here it is from a Baptist source @RLT63. (Dr. Craig isn’t the Baptist pastor who told me what trinitarianism theology says about Jesus.)

”There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”)

http://[URL="https://www.biola.edu/...jesus-idolatry"]Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

[/URL]

Is Jesus God in the flesh? Why is it important that Jesus is God in the flesh? | GotQuestions.org

 

[RLT63]

“Jesus is not a human person.”

This was the shock I received when I was JAT. It was delivered to me by my Baptist pastor - in a Bible study, not from the pulpit.

It has to be false. That’s what I thought then; that’s what I think now.

I changed. Trinitarian theology hasn’t. It can’t. It’s “stuck” with “Jesus is not a human person.”

Jesus is a man. The Bible teaches this. He is also divine. I am not beholden to what someone else says, only to what the Bible says.

 

[dhh712]

I agree that is the case for some, but not all. I believe there are some who have been taught this wrong idea of the Trinity and are struggling with it. At the same time they believe in Christ as the Saviour, depending on Him. I see them as saved as anyone.

Yes, definitely--it is Jesus alone who saves, not one's theology. I'm sure there are saved Non-Trinitarians as well. Like you were saying in the Catholic thread how Catholicism puts you in a rage, it is the idea that Jesus is not God that puts me there. It is so unimaginable that anyone can read the Bible and not see how it is declared that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. So that's the reason for the heated expressions. As my husband had always said, there will be heretics in heaven. And he meant the same thing as I did when I say it is Jesus who saves not your theology. Catholics, Unitarians, Universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, all those outside of orthodoxy I'm sure there are those who actually are our brothers and sisters in Jesus (but like I said I personally cannot consider anyone who does not worship Jesus as God to be my brother or sister in Him. I agree that it is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith).

 

[dhh712]

Non -trinitarians? isn't that believing in one true God. I'm not quite getting what your saying?

The Trinity is One God: The One Triune God. Christians believe that God is Triune: He has three persons. Completely beyond the limits of comprehension of our finite logic.

In contradistinction to your statement above, the very fact that Jesus is, as you also concur with, the Son of God, is the greatest testament and affirmation of His deity of anything else in scripture. He was begotten. Your huge hole is your insistence that begotten is the same as created.

Yes, Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. Again, our finite minds cannot comprehend the Trinity. It appears to be entirely beyond the limits of possibility. And to say that someone is a direct offspring of a parent (not adopted) is to say that that offspring is of the same exact substance of the person who begot it, gave it life. To say that Jesus is the Son of God is to say exactly that He is God.

Those who were alive at the time of Jesus understood this clearly. To hear Jesus say that God is my Father in Heaven and that the Father and I are one--he is declaring that He is God. There can be no misunderstanding of what he said at that time. It was very, very crystal clear to his direct audience. That is why they were going to stone him because if he was just a man then he would be speaking blasphemy.

When we say we are God's children we must specify that we are the adopted children of God. If we actually say that no, I'm really God's child that he literally gave birth to me as in a physical way like I came from the loins of God, then we are effectually saying that we are God too and that would be blasphemy. But that is what Jesus was saying all the time he was here on earth.

So you only have two choices to make according to God's revealed word: Was Jesus a blasphemer and not actually God? Or was he saying the truth and that He is God. There is no third option. Either he is a liar and committing a great disservice to humanity, some nutcase that needed to be put away and his death was good and deserved. Or, he is God. Those are the only choices you have. To make up another you are ignoring a large part of the New Testament so you are not actually making the choice from God's revealed word. You are making it from your own excerpts from the Bible.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is a man. The Bible teaches this. He is also divine.

That’s right.

“Jesus is not a human person.” - trinitarian theology, Catholic and Protestant.

Trinitarian theology doesn’t teach what the Bible teaches. Trinitarian theology is a post-biblical interpretation of scripture.

 

[quietthinker]

Yes, definitely--it is Jesus alone who saves, not one's theology. I'm sure there are saved Non-Trinitarians as well. Like you were saying in the Catholic thread how Catholicism puts you in a rage, it is the idea that Jesus is not God that puts me there. It is so unimaginable that anyone can read the Bible and not see how it is declared that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. So that's the reason for the heated expressions. As my husband had always said, there will be heretics in heaven. And he meant the same thing as I did when I say it is Jesus who saves not your theology. Catholics, Unitarians, Universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, all those outside of orthodoxy I'm sure there are those who actually are our brothers and sisters in Jesus (but like I said I personally cannot consider anyone who does not worship Jesus as God to be my brother or sister in Him. I agree that it is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith).

Jesus needs fleshing out. If its not the irrelevant stuff continues......stuff like (using a metaphor.....how many millions in a thousand?

 

[Matthias]

Is Jesus God in the flesh? Why is it important that Jesus is God in the flesh? | GotQuestions.org

An ethical question: Can a person be a trinitarian but not believe trinitarian theology?

You’re feeding me trinitarian theology. I’m feeding it back to you, and you aren’t buying it.

 

[dhh712]

Jesus needs fleshing out. If its not the irrelevant stuff continues......stuff like (using a metaphor.....how many millions in a thousand?

Oh, exactly. That is why I'm a huge proponent of orthodoxy and not heresies such as the Catholic Church, Unitarianism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others. As a pastor recently said in a sermon, such heterodoxy blunts the word of Truth. But I will always say that I will not stand in the place of Jesus and condemn anyone to be exiled from him for eternity; it is just not my place. That place is God's alone.

The Creeds came about because of the heresies that were coming out of the church at the time. There needed to be a consensus of what the Bible actually said. To say that the Creeds were written centuries after the Bible is meaningless. At the time of the Apostolic Church a Creed was not needed because the heresies were at the fruition period; it took time for such false ideas to become implanted and wide-spread. Though the church grew exponentially, it did not cover the earth in a matter of a couple decades. Before the Creeds were written such heretical doctrines were kept at bay at the local church level; yet the leaven spread and before long it couldn't be contained. That they were written several hundred years after is just a natural effect of false Biblical teachings being spread over time. Something eventually needed to be done about it: thus the Councils and Creeds were written.

 

[RLT63]

An ethical question: Can a person be a trinitarian but not believe trinitarian theology?

You’re feeding me trinitarian theology. I’m feeding it back to you, and you aren’t buying it.

I believe what the Bible teaches. There are problems when we try to define the undefinable and explain the unexplainable.

 

[Wrangler]

Except for one glaring fact. God sent His only begotten Son. He didn't send His adopted son.

Well, he did per Hebrews 1. It's just that disctinction is not always made. It's the same with claiming Jesus is descended from David. That's only true if you recognoze the stepfather Joseph. If this is not true, how do you explain the verses of 'today' you become my son in Hebrews 1?

 

[Matthias]

I believe what the Bible teaches. There are problems when we try to define the undefinable and explain the unexplainable.

There are problems with trinitarian theology.

For myself, I couldn’t with a clear conscience claim to be trinitarian while at the same time rejecting what trinitarianism teaches.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I agree with a lot of what you said about angels but what you say about Jesus is just speculation. Why would he still have the wounds in his hands and side that he showed to Thomas? John 20:27

Speculation? Can you imagine the physical condition of the man that was hung up at Calvary that day? Pilate had his soldiers scourge Jesus to appease the Jews who were threatening his political career. The most terrible instrument for scourging was known as the flagellum, which consisted of a handle into which several cords or leather thongs were fixed. These thongs were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal to make the blow more painful and effective. It would have torn his flesh to ribbons. Add to that the crown of thorns embedded into his scalp and of course the wounds in his hands and feet, as well as the spear that pierced his side. Jesus was a physical mess. Now tell me how many times people mentioned his wounds and the evidence of his torture? Only to a doubting Thomas did Jesus materialize a body with wounds to convince his apostle that it was really him....think for a moment that Thomas, like the rest of the apostles had spent three and a half years as the constant companion of their Master. Surely his physical appearance would have been enough if Jesus was in the same body?

 

[RLT63]

There are problems with trinitarian theology.

For myself, I couldn’t with a clear conscience claim to be trinitarian while at the same time rejecting what trinitarianism teaches.

I have explained this before. Jesus is both a man and divine. So much a man he could cry. So divine he could raise the dead and walk on water.

 

[quietthinker]

Oh, exactly. That is why I'm a huge proponent of orthodoxy and not heresies such as the Catholic Church, Unitarianism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others. As a pastor recently said in a sermon, such heterodoxy blunts the word of Truth. But I will always say that I will not stand in the place of Jesus and condemn anyone to be exiled from him for eternity; it is just not my place. That place is God's alone.

The Creeds came about because of the heresies that were coming out of the church at the time. There needed to be a consensus of what the Bible actually said. To say that the Creeds were written centuries after the Bible is meaningless. At the time of the Apostolic Church a Creed was not needed because the heresies were at the fruition period; it took time for such false ideas to become implanted and wide-spread. Though the church grew exponentially, it did not cover the earth in a matter of a couple decades. Before the Creeds were written such heretical doctrines were kept at bay at the local church level; yet the leaven spread and before long it couldn't be contained. That they were written several hundred years after is just a natural effect of false Biblical teachings being spread over time. Something eventually needed to be done about it: thus the Councils and Creeds were written.

Fleshing out Jesus does not require the sins of the fathers regurgitated.

 

[RLT63]

Speculation? Can you imagine the physical condition of the man that was hung up at Calvary that day? Pilate had his soldiers scourge Jesus to appease the Jews who were threatening his political career. The most terrible instrument for scourging was known as the flagellum, which consisted of a handle into which several cords or leather thongs were fixed. These thongs were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal to make the blow more painful and effective. It would have torn his flesh to ribbons. Add to that the crown of thorns embedded into his scalp and of course the wounds in his hands and feet, as well as the spear that pierced his side. Jesus was a physical mess. Now tell me how many times people mentioned his wounds and the evidence of his torture? Only to a doubting Thomas did Jesus materialize a body with wounds to convince his apostle that it was really him....think for a moment that Thomas, like the rest of the apostles had spent three and a half years as the constant companion of their Master. Surely his physical appearance would have been enough if Jesus was in the same body?

That's exactly why they wouldn't recognize him. But you have to take in account that a miracle had occurred

 

[Matthias]

I have explained this before. Jesus is both a man and divine. So much a man he could cry. So divine he could raise the dead and walk on water.

I agree with that explanation.

*

Knock. Knock. Knock.

Is that a trinitarian I hear knocking at my door?

“There is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

That is a trinitarian knocking at my door, but that isn’t JAT knocking at my door.

The trinitarian knocking at my door is a trinitarian who knows and believes what trinitarian theology teaches about Jesus of Nazareth.

JAT doesn’t really know what trinitarianism teaches about Jesus, and rejects what it teaches when he / she finds out - but does not relinquish the title, “trinitarian”.

 

[quietthinker]

I agree with that explanation.

*

Knock. Knock. Knock.

Is that a trinitarian I hear knocking at my door?

“There is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

That is a trinitarian knocking at my door, but that isn’t JAT knocking at my door.

The trinitarian knocking at my door is a trinitarian who knows and believes what trinitarian theology teaches about Jesus of Nazareth.

I never heard Jesus talking in these terms!

 

[Matthias]

I never heard Jesus talking in these terms!

No one has, nor ever will.

Jesus - contrary to trinitarian theology - is a human person.