What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

Trinitarianism: Jesus is human, not a human person.

What does JAT say about that?

JAT neither knows nor cares how trinitarianism explains it. JAT rejects it, generally recognizing that on the surface it’s nonsense.

 

[APAK]

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”.

These two words, 'divine' and 'deity' have also caused so much confusion and seems to fit the needs of a Trinitarian/Binitarian when the definition is stretched out a bit. A shared or an independent 'godlike' or of a 'godly' nature or being, does not lead to being a deity.



Deity vs Divinity - What's the difference?
deity
English
(wikipedia deity)
Noun
(deities)

• The state of being a god; divine characteristics, godhead.

• A divine being; a god or goddess.

divinity
English
Noun

• (uncountable) The property of being divine, of being like a god or God.

A celestial being, inferior to the supreme God, but superior to man.

 

[RLT63]

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



Cool.



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”.

You are referring to a form of Trinitarianism that I don't subscribe to.

 

[Matthias]

You are referring to a form of Trinitarianism that I don't subscribe to.

Orthodoxy.

I also don’t subscribe to it.

A growing number of trinitarians don’t subscribe to it. That’s why Dr. Harold O.J. Brown wrote his book Heresy. He wrote it for people just like you. His mission in life, his goal, was to bring you back to orthodoxy.

 

[Peterlag]

John 8
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

The phrase "I am" occurs many other times in the New Testament and is often translated as "I am he" or I am the one I claim to be. Mark 11:36; Luke 21:8; John 13:19, 18:5, 6 and 8. "It is I" Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. ...I am the one I clam to be..." John 8:24 and 28. It is obvious that these translations are quite correct and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am" only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was) spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

 

[RLT63]

Orthodoxy.

I also don’t subscribe to it.

A growing number of trinitarians don’t subscribe to it. That’s why Dr. Harold O.J. Brown wrote his book Heresy. He wrote it for people just like you. His mission in life, his goal, was to bring you back to orthodoxy.

He also subscribed to Reformed Theology. I believe that means Calvinism if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Matthias]

He also subscribed to Reformed Theology. I believe that means Calvinism if I'm not mistaken.

That’s right. One needn’t be a Calvinist in order to embrace orthodoxy. Brown wasn’t writing with the purpose of bringing us back to Calvinism. He wrote to bring us back to historical trinitarianism, orthodoxy.

 

[farouk]

He also subscribed to Reformed Theology. I believe that means Calvinism if I'm not mistaken.

@RLT63 Those terms can be generally interchangeable; Reformed theology can also carry the connotation of being systematic and following certain patterns of logic. (My own 2c is that one should in which case take care that the system of logic being superimposed is actually directly Scriptural.) People also speak of Biblical Calvinism, which reflects a strong understanding of the sovereignty of God in the Gospel but does not necessary rest on superimposed systems of logic, the provenance of which is not necessarily clear.

 

[farouk]

I have to disagree with that statement.

Me too.

 

[Matthias]

That’s right. One needn’t be a Calvinist in order to embrace orthodoxy. Brown wasn’t writing with the purpose of bringing us back to Calvinism. He wrote to bring us back to historical trinitarianism, orthodoxy.

Dr. Brown to straying trinitarians, in Heresy: Come back to Chalcedon. Come back to Nicaea. Come back to orthodoxy. Come back to the faith.

He was heart broken over the decline of orthodoxy. Heresy was first published in 1984. Orthodoxy continues to decline.

His plea hasn’t stopped the hemorrhage. It could, but I don’t think it will. Who’s reading Brown?

Orthodoxy is alive but dying.

The irony is that it’s being killed by trinitarians.

 

[Peterlag]

I don't understand how you can read John 1 and not be clear about this

John 1:14

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.

 

[RLT63]

John 1:14

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.

I have seen this post word for word before. I don't know if you have previously responded or it was someone else

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus had to be God because God gave a curse of death with the Law that could only be broken by God himself.

Do we have a verse to go along with that?

 

[RLT63]

Do we have a verse to go along with that?

Romans 6:23

 

[Wrangler]

The phrase "I am" occurs many other times in the New Testament and is often translated as "I am he" or I am the one I claim to be. Mark 11:36; Luke 21:8; John 13:19, 18:5, 6 and 8. "It is I" Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. ...I am the one I clam to be..." John 8:24 and 28. It is obvious that these translations are quite correct and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am" only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was) spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

Like their insisting 'word' must be referring to Jesus, the idolatry of "I am" must mean he is claiming to be God is too dear to give up. It shows how desperate they must be to read into unitarian text what is not there AND simultaneously block out evidence that goes against their man-made interpretations.

One guy asked what is the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? Meant to be rhetocial, I said, 'I dunno. What is the name of the Father and his children?" Cricket. What they consider 'gotcha' questions is hilarious. Another example is their reliance on baptizing in the name of these 3 AS IF that is a statement of the trinity. It does not even mention the nature of God or believing this nature is a requirement to salvation.

Regarding evience contrary to their doctrine, Ex 3:15 God says his name is YHWH and that is the name he is to be remembered for all time. This is an inconvenient truth for trinitarians. The verse sports singular (not plural) pronouns and his name aint Jesus.


God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.
Ex 3:15

 

[farouk]

I have seen this post word for word before. I don't know if you have previously responded or it was someone else

@RLT63 Sometimes things do get repeated.........

 

[Matthias]

You are referring to a form of Trinitarianism that I don't subscribe to.

Many of my colleagues don’t like it that I post orthodox trinitarian scholars. They’ve expressed their concern that it is doing the job of the trinitarian - “aiding and abetting, promoting, a theology we don’t agree with“ - and may cause people to embrace it.

I am doing that job and I do run that risk.

Why do I do it? Do you know? Do you care? Does it matter?

 

[Peterlag]

Like their insisting 'word' must be referring to Jesus, the idolatry of "I am" must mean he is claiming to be God is too dear to give up. It shows how desperate they must be to read into unitarian text what is not there AND simultaneously block out evidence that goes against their man-made interpretations.

One guy asked what is the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? Meant to be rhetocial, I said, 'I dunno. What is the name of the Father and his children?" Cricket. What they consider 'gotcha' questions is hilarious. Another example is their reliance on baptizing in the name of these 3 AS IF that is a statement of the trinity. It does not even mention the nature of God or believing this nature is a requirement to salvation.

Regarding evience contrary to their doctrine, Ex 3:15 God says his name is YHWH and that is the name he is to be remembered for all time. This is an inconvenient truth for trinitarians. The verse sports singular (not plural) pronouns and his name aint Jesus.


God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.
Ex 3:15

Logic is not being used when no matter what I say they say that was when he was acting like a man.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's some data on John 1:14 cause it keeps coming up...

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.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's a bit on John 8:58...

The phrase "I am" occurs many other times in the New Testament and is often translated as "I am he" or I am the one I claim to be. Mark 11:36; Luke 21:8; John 13:19, 18:5, 6 and 8. "It is I" Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. ...I am the one I clam to be..." John 8:24 and 28. It is obvious that these translations are quite correct and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am" only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was) spoken of throughout the Old Testament.