What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

A pastor (a unitarian, if it matters) told me about a woman in the Church who died and was buried in her pajamas. [As I recall now, after a few minutes of thought, the word that he used was “night gown”.] 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.

I’ve never attended a funeral where someone was buried in their sleepwear. I like that idea. It conveys the biblical idea of the dead being asleep in the grave.

Why are people typically buried in their finest clothing? Is it not because they believe they are going to be with the Lord?

Rather tragically, I was assigned to work in the aftermath of a catastrophic flood which caused caskets to come out of the earth. The people in the caskets were in various stages of decomposition. All of them, I was told, were still wearing their fine clothing, or what remained of it. They hadn’t met the Lord in their earthly attire. They hadn’t gone anywhere. They were sleeping in the dust of the earth.

 

[theefaith]

But only if you’re a Roman Catholic, right?

correct baptism makes a Christian
Right!

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Aunty Jane writes...

If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic church in the 4th century, don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same church that brought you "Mary Mother of God" and "immortality of the soul" and "purgatory and hellfire", don't you wonder just a little bit?

P.S. @Peterlag...

They brought you your sin nature too.

Actually I believe it was “original sin”, which for some reason was assumed to be sex.....perhaps that is why Mary’s mother must have conceived her immaculately, otherwise Mary herself would not have been able to conceive Jesus? But there is no scripture that even suggests this. Just another Catholic invention to promote their trinity, in giving God a “mother”.....sickening IMO.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A pastor (a unitarian, if it matters) told me about a woman in the Church who died and was buried in her pajamas. [As I recall now, after a few minutes of thought, the word that he used was “night gown”.] 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.

I’ve never attended a funeral where someone was buried in their sleepwear. I like that idea. It conveys the biblical idea of the dead being asleep in the grave.

Why are people typically buried in their finest clothing? Is it not because they believe they are going to be with the Lord?

Rather tragically, I was assigned to work in the aftermath of a catastrophic flood which caused caskets to come out of the earth. The people in the caskets were in various stages of decomposition. All of them, I was told, were still wearing their fine clothing, or what remained of it. They hadn’t met the Lord in their earthly attire. They hadn’t gone anywhere. They were sleeping in the dust of the earth.

I also remember a funeral of one of my brothers where the funeral director and his team who attended commented later....that it was the first funeral they had held, where the deceased was actually dead.

He was also impressed by the funeral discourse and the hope of the resurrection....sleeping in death was a comforting thought, rather than imagining these ones, separated from their family, being in a strange place without them...or worse experiencing the terrors of hell.

 

[Matthias]

correct baptism makes a Christian
Right!

Sometimes, baptism just makes people wet.

Baptism and the Catholic Church makes a Christian. That’s been your message to me.

 

[RLT63]

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.

I don't know. Demons are bodiless spirits and they seek bodies to possess. None of this really matters. I've read that even if you are dead until the resurrection to you it will seem instantaneous, even if it's thousands of years it will seem like it was immediate

 

[Matthias]

I don't know. Demons are bodiless spirits and they seek bodies to possess. None of this really matters.

Both the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and the New Testament spend a considerable amount of time and effort discussing it. That in itself causes me to think that it really matters.

I've read that even if you are dead until the resurrection to you it will seem instantaneous, even if it's thousands of years it will seem like it was immediate

That’s how I think of it. That’s how I portray it in sermons, lessons, and funerals.

I mentioned earlier that, at my grandmother’s request, I preached at her graveside service. She didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, nor did her Baptist pastor. He spoke briefly and left the the bulk of the service in my hands.

He told the sparse number of people in attendance about the grand reunion with my grandfather that took place in heaven when my grandmother “passed away”. How happy they were, he said, as they caught up on all the years they had been separated. Oh, the shouting, rejoicing, the laughing and the crying that happened on that blessed day. The tears of joy, rolling down their cheeks, as they hugged and held hands. - There was more, but you get the idea.

That’s pretty remarkable in light of the fact that they have no bodies. Anyway, it went over well with the “crowd.”

When he concluded, I preached the resurrection of the dead. The pastor and his assistant glared at me. It wasn’t any great feat to see that they were seething inside. The “crowd” wasn’t seething inside; they looked dazed and confused. Clearly, what I was saying was incompatible with what they had heard from the Baptist pastor.

The text for my message was 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

It failed to comfort them. It’s not difficult to figure out why.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You believe that he preexisted as the archangel Michael.

Is this true Aunty Jane?

It is a “belief” held by us, but it does not have “doctrine” status because there is no clear or direct statement concerning it. What we have is what is mentioned about the pre-human Jesus in the scriptures. (Paul said he was “the firstborn of all creation” both in heaven and on earth in Colossians 1:15-17) “All” means every creation....so he pre-existed all that God created, having been involved in all of it. (Proverbs 8:30-31)
Colossians 1:16 says that all creation came into existence “through” Jesus and was created “for” him.
John 1:2-3 says much the same...
“This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”
Since an eternal God has no beginning...this must mean the beginning of creation. The pre-human Jesus was there as a “servant” of his God and Father, acting as his “master workman”, always under his Father’s direction. (Acts 4:27)

I understand that if you don’t believe that Jesus had a pre-human existence except as a concept, some of the scripture I offer will be waved away as invalid....but to my understanding, the trinity is the only impediment to Jesus being the Archangel Michael, under a name he has always held in his heavenly role. Yet Jesus has many names as the Bible indicates....they usually describe the roles that he has been assigned. On his return to heaven for example, he was assigned another “new name”. (Philippians 2:9; Revelation 3:12)

We see this Prince named Michael first mentioned in the book of Daniel. There an angel of God refers to him in these words: “But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me . . . And now I shall go back to fight with the prince of Persia”. . . . . “When I am going forth, look! also the prince of Greece is coming. However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these things but Michael, the prince of you people.” (Daniel 10:13, 20-21)

This gives us a fascinating glimpse of the spirit realm. We see that spirit creatures—good and bad—are very much involved in world affairs. There was a spirit “prince of the royal realm of Persia,” opposing the activities of God’s angel. After Persia there would be a “prince of Greece,” promoting the interests of that world power. Among these spirit creatures, Michael was one of “the foremost princes” guiding and protecting Daniel’s people.

The name “Michael” means “Who Is Like God?” indicating that this foremost prince upholds Jehovah’s sovereignty. Since Michael is also a champion of God’s people, we have reason to identify him with the unnamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him.” (Exodus 23:20-21)

It is therefore logical for us to conclude that this was the angel that delivered so many important communications to God’s people. (Acts 7:30, 35; Judges 2:1-3) He had full authority from God to act in His name.

We also learn from Jude that Michael was “the” archangel, and since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, (nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural) we understand that “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) So, for us, it stands to reason that this “Prince” who is chief of the angels is the son of God. Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) so we believe that this too, argues that Jesus and Michael are the same spiritual personage under different names and in different roles.

 

[Aunty Jane]

When every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord is that not worship?

Nope.....bending the knee is an act of reverence or honour......not worship. Prostrating oneself to another was a custom that denoted humility and acknowledgment of the other’s superiority in Bible times.
If you read on in Philippians it says that we are to openly confess that Jesus is “Lord” (not God) and this was to give glory to the Father...not the son.

 

[Matthias]

A favorite book of mine is Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?: The Witness of The New Testament, written by Oscar Cullmann (a trinitarian, if it matters). I highly recommend it to all readers.

An excerpt from the Conlusion,

“On his missionary journeys Paul met people who were unable to believe in his preaching of the resurrection for the very reason that they believed in the immortality of the soul. Thus in Athens there was no laughter until Paul spoke of the resurrection (Acts 17:32). Both the people of whom Paul says (in 1 Thessalonians 4:13) that ‘they have no hope’ and those of whom he writes (in 1 Corinthians 15:12) that they do not believe there is a resurrection from the dead are probably not Epicureans, as we are inclined to believe. Even those who believe in the immortality of the soul do not have the hope of which Paul speaks, the hope which expresses the belief of a divine miracle of new creation which will embrace everything, every part of the world created by God. Indeed for the Greeks who believed in the immortality of the soul it may have been harder to accept the Christian preaching of the resurrection than it was for others.

(p. 59)

I paused here because the very next sentence in his writing touches lightly on someone and something I mentioned earlier in the thread. I didn’t want it to be lost with the author’s comments about Paul.

“About the year 150 Justin (in his Dialogue, 80) writes of people, ‘who say that there is no resurrection from the dead, but that immediately at death their souls would ascend to heaven’. Here the contrast is indeed clearly perceived.”

(Ibid.)

 

[RLT63]

Nope.....bending the knee is an act of reverence or honour......not worship. Prostrating oneself to another was a custom that denoted humility and acknowledgment of the other’s superiority in Bible times.
If you read on in Philippians it says that we are to openly confess that Jesus is “Lord” (not God) and this was to give glory to the Father...not the son.

LOL

 

[Matthias]

“… widespread is the mistake of attributing to primitive Christianity the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul.”

(Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, p. 7.)

I quote this for two reasons:

1. I self-identify as a primitive Christian; and
2. This is easy to confirm by reading the Early Church Fathers.

Was Dr. Cullmann, then, on “easy street”?

“… the truth I have found it necessary to draw between the courageous and joyful primitive Christian hope of the resurrection of the dead and the serene philosophic expectation of the survival of the immortal soul, has displeased not only many sincere Christians in all Communions and of all theological outlooks, but also those whose convictions, while not outwardly alienated from Christianity, are more strongly molded by philosophical considerations.”

(Ibid., p. 6)

I read the book many years before I delivered my grandmother’s graveside sermon. I often recall this comment made by Dr. Cullmann when I think back about that day in the cemetery.

The Baptist pastor that summer morning was, to put it mildly, “displeased”.

What I had previously only read about, I experienced myself that day.

It doesn’t matter? Let the reader decide.

It mattered enough to make a Baptist pastor scowl.

 

[Aunty Jane]

LOL

I understand that to mean..."I have no response so I will create derision because I cannot refute what was said"....

I am getting used to you not responding or changing the subject....the truth proves itself....and finding the truth now matters because Jesus is going to reject those who worship a different God to the one he presented to his first century disciples....putting two other "gods" in the Father's place is a breach of the first Commandment......why do you think it is the first? (Exodus 20:3)

 

[RLT63]

“… widespread is the mistake of attributing to primitive Christianity the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul.”

(Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, p. 7.)

I quote this for two reasons:

1. I self-identify as a primitive Christian; and
2. This is easy to confirm by reading the Early Church Fathers.

Was Dr. Cullmann, then, on “easy street”?

“… the truth I have found it necessary to draw between the courageous and joyful primitive Christian hope of the resurrection of the dead and the serene philosophic expectation of the survival of the immortal soul, has displeased not only many sincere Christians in all Communions and of all theological outlooks, but also those whose convictions, while not outwardly alienated from Christianity, are more strongly molded by philosophical considerations.”

(Ibid., p. 6)

I read the book many years before I delivered my grandmother’s graveside sermon. I often recall this comment made by Dr. Cullmann when I think back about that day in the cemetery.

The Baptist pastor that summer morning was, to put it mildly, “displeased”.

What I had previously only read about, I experienced myself that day.

It doesn’t matter? Let the reader decide.

It mattered enough to make a Baptist pastor scowl.

This must be really bad news for Catholics. All those saints they recognize are just rotting away in a grave somewhere.

 

[Peterlag]

Actually I believe it was “original sin”, which for some reason was assumed to be sex.....perhaps that is why Mary’s mother must have conceived her immaculately, otherwise Mary herself would not have been able to conceive Jesus? But there is no scripture that even suggests this. Just another Catholic invention to promote their trinity, in giving God a “mother”.....sickening IMO.

Actually I believe it was “original sin”, which for some reason was assumed to be sex.....perhaps that is why Mary’s mother must have conceived her immaculately, otherwise Mary herself would not have been able to conceive Jesus? But there is no scripture that even suggests this. Just another Catholic invention to promote their trinity, in giving God a “mother”.....sickening IMO.

Did you see my take on Colossians 1:16?

 

[Aunty Jane]

This must be really bad news for Catholics. All those saints they recognize are just rotting away in a grave somewhere.

Yes...and if they were members of the Catholic hierarchy responsible for the blasphemous errors that have been fed to the ignorant masses for centuries, then they will never see the light of day again. They will be in the same place as Jesus consigned to Pharisees to.....(Matthew 23:33)
Teaching "the commands of men" and passing them off as Biblical doctrine. (Matthew 15:7-9)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Did you see my take on Colossians 1:16?

no, must have missed it....its a long thread, can you give me a reference? Page and #number?

 

[Matthias]

This must be really bad news for Catholics.

Why? They aren’t hearing the news I’m delivering. Those few who do dismiss it out of hand.

The area where I currently live is roughly 80% Roman Catholic. I’m pretty well-known here. Some day I’ll have to share with you what happened when the Catholic Church allowed me to speak at my father-in-law’s funeral mass. (The officiating deacon and priest weren’t happy. My mother-in-law told me in the ride to the cemetery that my father-in-law would have been happy that they weren’t.)

When a couple of years later my mother-in-law died, I wasn’t allowed by the Catholic Church to speak at her funeral mass. Lesson learned, I suppose.

All those saints they recognize are just rotting away in a grave somewhere.

No Catholic worth his salt believes that to be the case. But it’s true, say I.

btw, one of my ancestors is a very famous Catholic saint. A “star of stars,” if you will. I do love irony.

 

[RLT63]

I understand that to mean..."I have no response so I will create derision because I cannot refute what was said"....

I am getting used to you not responding or changing the subject....the truth proves itself....and finding the truth now matters because Jesus is going to reject those who worship a different God to the one he presented to his first century disciples....putting two other "gods" in the Father's place is a breach of the first Commandment......why do you think it is the first? (Exodus 20:3)

You have a lot of knowledge about your particular theology and when something doesn't fit you find a translation that suits your beliefs or explain why worship doesn't really mean worship and why the word in the first verses of John means something different than the word in verse 14 and no matter what evidence you are presented with you can always find a way to justify your own beliefs. That's fine. But when you insist that your beliefs are the only ones that have merit that is where I have to take issue. I have not tried to convince you that your view is wrong or made condescending remarks with the exception of the LOL because your position about worship is the same as when you explained people didn't really worship Jesus even though the Bible clearly says they did. You have what is called confirmation bias and you only consider information that supports your view. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose but don't be so sure that you are the only one that has it right. You may be in for a rude awakening one day

 

[Peterlag]

no, must have missed it....its a long thread, can you give me a reference? Page and #number?

2184