What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

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.

So are other human persons. The first such person who springs to mind is Peter.

 

[RLT63]

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”.

The only title I go by is Christian.

 

[RLT63]

So are other human persons. The first such person who springs to mind is Peter.

Peter could only do it by keeping his eyes on Jesus. He started to sink.

 

[quietthinker]

The only title I go by is Christian.

both my titles sit on my chest.

 

[Matthias]

Peter could only do it by keeping his eyes on Jesus. He started to sink.

Yes. But the point is he could, and did, do it.

Peter is both a man and divine.

 

[Matthias]

The only title I go by is Christian.

In that case, would you prefer that others refrain from using the title “trinitarian” to describe you?

When you knock on my door, a Christian is knocking, not a trinitarian?

 

[Peterlag]

To find out firsthand what it's like to be a man.

Do you have a verse to go along with that?

 

[dhh712]

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

Of course not. It requires an orthodox interpretation of God's revelation to us.

 

[RLT63]

In that case, would you prefer that others refrain from using the title “trinitarian” to describe you?

When you knock on my door, a Christian is knocking, not a trinitarian?

Maybe not your definition of a Trinitarian. I believe there is a Trinity.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

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).

Note: both Catholics and Mormons both celebrate Christ as the divine Son of God.

 

[Matthias]

Maybe not your definition of a Trinitarian.

The only definition I have of a trinitarian is a person whose God is the Trinity.

The only definition I have of the Trinity is the one formulated in historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I believe there is a Trinity.

I know you do. That’s why I use the title “trinitarian” when addressing you.

But you embrace some teachings of historical trinitarianism and reject some teachings of historical trinitarianism. Some orthodoxy, not all orthodoxy.

When you read about Jesus in scripture you sometimes read with trinitarianism (orthodoxy) and you sometimes read without trinitarianism (orthodoxy).

 

[RLT63]

The only definition I have of a trinitarian is a person whose God is the Trinity.

The only definition I have of the Trinity is the one formulated in historical orthodox trinitarianism.



I know you do. That’s why I use the title “trinitarian” when addressing you.

But you embrace some teachings of historical trinitarianism and reject some teachings of historical trinitarianism.

When you read about Jesus in scripture you sometimes read with trinitarianism and you sometimes read without trinitarianism.

I'm just trying to go by scripture and not some definition, creed or title. There are some things I agree with you on. I just read a post by a binatarion (I guess) and I don't find what he said objectionable. I'm not here to label people with different views as heretics.

 

[Matthias]

I'm just trying to go by scripture and not some definition, creed or title. There are some things I agree with you on. I just read a post by a binatarion (I guess) and I don't find what he said objectionable. I'm not here to label people with different views as heretics.

I would like Christianity to shed all of the post-biblical creeds. That will happen some day, but it won’t happen before the Messiah returns.

 

[Matthias]

Christianity can rid itself of “Jesus is not a human person.”

Trinitarianism cannot rid itself of “Jesus is not a human person”. Trinitarian theologians explain why it can’t.

 

[RLT63]

Yes. But the point is he could, and did, do it.

Peter is both a man and divine.

I have to disagree with that statement.

 

[RLT63]

Christianity can rid itself of “Jesus is not a human person.”

Trinitarianism cannot rid itself of “Jesus is not a human person”. Trinitarian theologians explain why it can’t.

Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. In fact, Son of Man is the primary title Jesus used when referring to Himself (e.g., Matthew 12:32; 13:37; Luke 12:8; John 1:51). The only use of Son of Man in a clear reference to Jesus, spoken by someone other than Jesus, came from the lips of Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56).

Son of Man is a title of humanity. Other titles for Christ, such as Son of God are overt in their focus on His deity. Son of Man, in contrast, focuses on the humanity of Christ. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. In this way, God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. Son of man is simply a periphrastic term for “human.” Jesus Christ was truly a human being. He came “in the flesh” (1 John 4:2).
If you've been told something else it isn't a form of Trinitarianism that I subscribe to.

 

[Matthias]

I have to disagree with that statement.

Do what you have to do.

Why do you have to do it?

I think you have to do it because you don’t recognize that “divine” in my statement means is “godlike”. When you read “divine” you hear “deity”.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. In fact, Son of Man is the primary title Jesus used when referring to Himself (e.g., Matthew 12:32; 13:37; Luke 12:8; John 1:51).

Facts. Nothing but the facts. Everyone should be able to agree with this.

The only use of Son of Man in a clear reference to Jesus, spoken by someone other than Jesus, came from the lips of Stephen as he was being martyred (Acts 7:56).

Cool.

Son of Man is a title of humanity. Other titles for Christ, such as Son of God are overt in their focus on His deity. Son of Man, in contrast, focuses on the humanity of Christ. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” 93 times. In this way, God was simply calling Ezekiel a human being. Son of man is simply a periphrastic term for “human.” Jesus Christ was truly a human being. He came “in the flesh” (1 John 4:2).

Remove the first line in this paragraph about other titles (trinitarian bias) and we would be in agreement.

The line “Jesus was truly a human being” is correct. Reconcile that, if you can, with the teaching of trinitarian orthodoxy that “Jesus is not a human person”.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus didn't have a soul, He is part of the Spirit

WOW that's a new one. Jesus was never even here.

 

[Peterlag]

Wow! A soul-less Jesus. That's a new twist. Have fun with it. I know I will.

Yep, that's a new one on me. Jesus was never even here.