What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Wrangler]

You are talking about something else and not keeping up with the conversation so it's no wonder you are lost.

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill to end punishments against unvaccinated service members.

 

[Wrangler]

That's all you seem to be able to talk about.

What a beautiful Appeal to Poisoning The Well. How about, "That's very insightful. I don't have a reasonable response to refute it. I'm sure there's a trinitarian somewhere that would challenge the validity of it based on re-inventing:

1. Definitions
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture

In a desperate bid to invoke dualistic mysticism" or something like that.

 

[RLT63]

What a beautiful Appeal to Poisoning The Well. How about, "That's very insightful. I don't have a reasonable response to refute it. I'm sure there's a trinitarian somewhere that would challenge the validity of it based on re-inventing:

1. Definitions
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture

In a desperate bid to invoke dualistic mysticism" or something like that.

You have not been keeping up with the conversation and you just keep repeating the same thing. It doesn't even apply to the conversation. I'll let you know when I want to debate whether Jesus is God or not, that is the only subject you seem to be able to address.

 

[atpollard]

Let's talk about your free verse.

Ok.

God made Himself to be sin?

That is what the Apostle wrote, although that was only part of the sentence.

Am I getting this correct?

Correct, if incomplete.

And that's your verse to show me WHY Jesus had to be God?

No. That was the "free verse" that came after the explanation of why Jesus had to be God and call for you to find the verses for yourself. (The part of my post that you ignored just as you ignored the verses when I posted them earlier in this topic).

So He could make Himself to be sin?

No, that is not why Jesus had to be God. Read the expositional part of my post, which you ignored, again.

God became sin?

Yes, according to Paul He did. Paul even told us WHY He became sin.

For what purpose do you ask a question and then diligently labor to NOT HEAR the answer from all that attempt to respond to your question?

 

[RLT63]

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill to end punishments against unvaccinated service members.

Your comments have been as relevant as that article

 

[RLT63]

I’ve previously commented on all of these.



That’s imprecise. He said absent from the body and present with the Lord.

To be absent from the body is to be dead. Paul didn’t desire to be “unclothed” - that is, without his body; dead.

Paul also tells us exactly when the dead in Messiah will be “clothed” again - that is, with a body. Paul desired that.

Paul tells us exactly when the dead in Messiah will be present with the Lord - at his coming.

What happens in the interim?

1Th 4:13

¶
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
1Th 4:14

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.1Th 4:15

¶
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
1Th 4:16

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

How does the Lord bring with him those that are asleep? Where are they now? How will they rise if they are coming back with him? Or is the spirit receiving a resurrected body?

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus had to be “GOOD”.
Only God is “GOOD”.
Therefore, the only way for Jesus to be GOOD was for Jesus to be God.

It's so funny that trinitarians use the lack of evidence as evidence, in the case of Jesus not rebuking those who worshipped him. Yet, here, trinitarians ignore the evidence of Jesus rebuking them to called him good.

Isn't it also a possibility that Jesus was saying he is NOT good since he is NOT god? It seems more likely than some clandestine manner of contradicting himself since he elsewhere explicitly said he has a God who is the only true God.

 

[Wrangler]

I know why. But that doesn't give me a verse that says why God wants to be worshipped. You see how ridiculous this thread is?

Yet you make posts in this 'ridiculous' thread that are irrelevent to it, which is even more ridiculous.

 

[Wrangler]

That verse does use God and Christ interchangeably

Possibly but I still here crickets in response to all the times God and Christ are NOT used interchangeably.

God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

 

[RLT63]

It's so funny that trinitarians use the lack of evidence as evidence, in the case of Jesus not rebuking those who worshipped him. Yet, here, trinitarians ignore the evidence of Jesus rebuking them to called him good.

Isn't it also a possibility that Jesus was saying he is NOT good since he is NOT god? It seems more likely than some clandestine manner of contradicting himself since he elsewhere explicitly said he has a God who is the only true God.

He said he was the good shepherd. Oh, before I could post this you added your go to comment. Just disregard.

 

[Wrangler]

He said he was the good shepherd. Oh, before I could post this you added your go to comment. Just disregard.

Buddy, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot reasonably have a conversation while entertaining only evidence in favor of a proposition. Yes, Jesus said he was the good shepherd. That is a fact, but what do you make of that fact in the context of this thread?

 

[RLT63]

Yet you make posts in this 'ridiculous' thread that are irrelevent to it, which is even more ridiculous.

You have to address comments that are not directed to you? You have only one comment and you make it over and over whether it is relevant or not.

 

[Matthias]

1Th 4:13

¶
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
1Th 4:14

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.1Th 4:15

¶
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
1Th 4:16

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

That’s when we will be present with the Lord.

How does the Lord bring with him those that are asleep?

He wakes them up (resurrection), they meet him in the air and accompany him on his way to the earth.

Where are they now?

The dead - those who are asleep - are now in the grave.

How will they rise if they are coming back with him?

Resurrection.

Or is the spirit receiving a resurrected body?

What would a spirit need with a resurrected body, if a bodiless spirit has been doing just fine without it for 6,000 years? Or 2,000 years? Or 1,000 years? Or 100 years? Or 1 year? Or 10 minutes?

A pastor (a unitarian, if it matters) told me about a woman in the Church who died and was buried in her pajamas. She told him that she wanted to give a witness of her faith, our faith, in the resurrection of the dead to those who attended her funeral. She is asleep in the grave, awaiting the return of the Messiah, and his call to come forth.

 

[Wrangler]

You have to address comments that are not directed to you? You have only one comment and you make it over and over whether it is relevant or not.

By contrast, you make all sorts of comments having nothing to do with the OP. Why is that?

 

[RLT63]

Buddy, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot reasonably have a conversation while entertaining only evidence in favor of a proposition. Yes, Jesus said he was the good shepherd. That is a fact, but what do you make of that fact in the context of this thread?

You just said I can't do what you constantly do. Do you know how to disregard?

 

[RLT63]

That’s when we will be present with the Lord.



He wakes them up (resurrection), they meet him in the air and accompany him on his way to the earth.



The dead - those who are asleep - are now in the grave.



Resurrection.



What would a spirit need with a resurrected body, if a bodiless spirit has been doing just fine without it for 2,000 years? Or 1,000 years? Or 100 years? Or 1 year? Or 10 minutes?

To live on the earth for 1,000 years.

 

[RLT63]

By contrast, you make all sorts of comments having nothing to do with the OP. Why is that?

Because the conversation addresses other issues. I have had a good conversation with Matthias and others, sorry you weren't able to keep up.

 

[Matthias]

To live on the earth for 1,000 years.

Why would a bodiless spirit need to have a resurrected body to live on the earth for 1,000 years? If a bodiless spirit could live in heaven, a bodiless spirit could surely live anywhere.

 

[Matthias]

A person is a soul.

A person who is alive is a living soul. A person who is not alive is a dead soul.

Eight souls (eight persons) were saved alive in the flood which occurred in Noah’s day. All of the other souls perished. The living are alive; the dead are dead.

The dead will live again. The process is resurrection from the dust of the earth.

 

[Peterlag]

Ok.


That is what the Apostle wrote, although that was only part of the sentence.


Correct, if incomplete.


No. That was the "free verse" that came after the explanation of why Jesus had to be God and call for you to find the verses for yourself. (The part of my post that you ignored just as you ignored the verses when I posted them earlier in this topic).


No, that is not why Jesus had to be God. Read the expositional part of my post, which you ignored, again.


Yes, according to Paul He did. Paul even told us WHY He became sin.

For what purpose do you ask a question and then diligently labor to NOT HEAR the answer from all that attempt to respond to your question?

I must have missed something because I don't recall seeing a verse that tells the purpose why Jesus had to come to the earth as God.