What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Wrangler]

I am not responsible for HOW YOU SEE.
I said God has numerous NAMES.

And that is untrue.

 

[Taken]

Anything God touches produces something. Jesus being not God produced the spirit of Christ that allows me to walk by the spirit and be in fellowship with both God and Jesus Christ. Are you saying the trinity is of no value? That it produces nothing?

I am saying the “word” TRINITY in regards to Christian Beliefs”, is a “description” of the WHOLE of the Lord God Almighty.

Did I say the word “has no value”....No, I did not.
Did I say the word “produces anything”...No, I did not.

You are the one who mentioned “Producing”...
I have no requirement to agree with you.

I have zero desire to continue this irrelevant conversation with you.

 

[Taken]

And that is untrue.

AND yet, You were provided Scriptures that say it is TRUE.
No matter to me, what YOU believe.

 

[Wrangler]

AND yet, You were provided Scriptures that say it is TRUE.

No, you did not. God directly said his name was YHWH - that is THE name to be remembered for all generations. Simple.

Rather than accept that, you come up with a rationalization THAT supposes it means another name for God. Not simple. Not direct.

 

[Peterlag]

I am saying the “word” TRINITY in regards to Christian Beliefs”, is a “description” of the WHOLE of the Lord God Almighty.

Did I say the word “has no value”....No, I did not.
Did I say the word “produces anything”...No, I did not.

You are the one who mentioned “Producing”...
I have no requirement to agree with you.

I have zero desire to continue this irrelevant conversation with you.

Okay

 

[Peterlag]

The pragmatism of the Trinity?

I've not been following this thread, I dropped in to see what you would have to say afer 2400+ posts on this topic.

I commend you for still being on topic! But I have to question the validity of a man determining the usefulness of the nature of God.

In fact, the Son Who died for us reconciled us to the Father, and His Spirit lives in us giving us that new life that lives with God. Eternal life. Where does your eternal life come from if not unity with God? Are you thinking God confers to you some manner of eternal life that is somehow separate from Him? Not found by a shared spirit/Spirit?

The greatest unity and intimacy I can imagine would be found in a shared spirit/Spirit. Think about it, in the greatest display of love that could ever be, our very Creator Himself took on flesh, and came into our world to live and die for us, that in unity with Him we can live eternally, sharing His Own eternal life, God's life in us. What could be greater than this?

Nothing that I can imagine! The Grandest Gesture of all!

Much love!

I think what you're saying is the trinity has no benefit now, but it does later in the future. I think that's what you are saying.

 

[Peterlag]

No, you did not. God directly said his name was YHWH - that is THE name to be remembered for all generations. Simple.

Rather than accept that, you come up with a rationalization THAT supposes it means another name for God. Not simple. Not direct.

Question: Could part of the problem in the understanding between you two on the name of God be the difference between God's name and the things God is called. For example, I'm called many things on this website but I only have one name.

 

[Taken]

No, you did not. God directly said his name was YHWH - that is THE name to be remembered for all generations. Simple.

Rather than accept that, you come up with a rationalization THAT supposes it means another name for God. Not simple. Not direct.

God directly said his name was YHWH.

God said?
Name was?

This is YOUR rational argument?

Shouldn’t your own argument state;
YHWH said His name IS YHWH?

Ex 3:
[14] And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Perhaps you can EXPLAIN YHWH saying His name is to be remembered of ALL generations of ISRAEL, but then says to SAY TO the generations of ISRAEL...I AM sent Moses to the generations of ISRAEL.

You can remember and call on the Lord God Almighty as you please.
I am confidant every man who has a relationship with the Lord God Almighty, that He hears by whatever Name, Title, Description “they” call on Him. If “that” ^ is beyond “your” rationality, Who Cares?
I don’t.

 

[Wrangler]

Question: Could part of the problem in the understanding between you two on the name of God be the difference between God's name and the things God is called. For example, I'm called many things on this website but I only have one name.

Yes. In Post 2453 Taken wrote:

Everyone has multiply names, titles, descriptions ...

This is a tactic trinitarians often invoke, throw a bunch of stuff together and make it seem like it is all the same. In studying epistemology, one realizes there such a thing as a valid definition; It must have a genus and a differentia. Our society's perversion of equality has obsessed with the genus and jettisoned the differentia.

Sure, 'names, titles, and descriptions' have something generally in common but there is also something that differentiates these concepts. Man and god are not personal names but categories of life forms. There is only one true god, Jesus' father, and he has a personal name, YHWH.

If this were not enough, let's examine the text again of Ex 3:15 to revel in how explicit our Creator is in expressing himself.
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.

It's funny how trinitarians get all excited about how we are not to baptize people in the 'names of' but in the 'name of.' In that case, the importance of the singular 'name' is of utmost importantance. Yet, you can see from Taken's exchanges with me, the singular use of the word 'name' in Ex 3:15 is no nevermind.

God does not say here that in 1,700 years, I'll change my name or go by 2 or 3 names. No. He explicitly says YHWH is his eternal name, his name to remember for all generations. Yet, trinitarians will fight God himself to the death, not conceding a single point. I doubt that will work out too well for them.

 

[Wrangler]

Shouldn’t your own argument state;
YHWH said His name IS YHWH?

Ex 3:
[14]

No. Keep ignorning v15.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes. In Post 2453 Taken wrote:



This is a tactic trinitarians often invoke, throw a bunch of stuff together and make it seem like it is all the same. In studying epistemology, one realizes there such a thing as a valid definition; It must have a genus and a differentia. Our society's perversion of equality has obsessed with the genus and jettisoned the differentia.

Sure, 'names, titles, and descriptions' have something generally in common but there is also something that differentiates these concepts. Man and god are not personal names but categories of life forms. There is only one true god, Jesus' father, and he has a personal name, YHWH.

If this were not enough, let's examine the text again of Ex 3:15 to revel in how explicit our Creator is in expressing himself.
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.

It's funny how trinitarians get all excited about how we are not to baptize people in the 'names of' but in the 'name of.' In that case, the importance of the singular 'name' is of utmost importantance. Yet, you can see from Taken's exchanges with me, the singular use of the word 'name' in Ex 3:15 is no nevermind.

God does not say here that in 1,700 years, I'll change my name or go by 2 or 3 names. No. He explicitly says YHWH is his eternal name, his name to remember for all generations. Yet, trinitarians will fight God himself to the death, not conceding a single point. I doubt that will work out too well for them.

What I know about it...

The name “Yahweh” was known by the people of God from the earliest times. Some scholars assert that God’s name Yahweh (it may have been pronounced differently) was a later development, but it is used in the records in Genesis from earliest times. Words such as Elohim and El Shaddai are not names, they are titles. “Yahweh” is the only actual name of God in the Bible.

 

[marks]

I think what you're saying is the trinity has no benefit now, but it does later in the future. I think that's what you are saying.

I have to question the validity of a man determining the usefulness of the nature of God.

 

[Wrangler]

What I know about it...

The name “Yahweh” was known by the people of God from the earliest times. Some scholars assert that God’s name Yahweh (it may have been pronounced differently) was a later development, but it is used in the records in Genesis from earliest times. Words such as Elohim and El Shaddai are not names, they are titles. “Yahweh” is the only actual name of God in the Bible.

Another person clarifies YHWH is the personal name of God. Again, genus and differentia.

I understand these Greek words mean:

• Elohim: Heavenly Being (including life forms angels and god)
  
• El Shaddai: Almighty God

Whether title or description, these are not God's name, not his personal name. And the trinitarian refusal to acknowleddge Ex 3:15 is obvious and its motive sad.

 

[Peterlag]

What I know about it...

The name “Yahweh” was known by the people of God from the earliest times. Some scholars assert that God’s name Yahweh (it may have been pronounced differently) was a later development, but it is used in the records in Genesis from earliest times. Words such as Elohim and El Shaddai are not names, they are titles. “Yahweh” is the only actual name of God in the Bible.

Moses is about to go back to Egypt and try to convince the Israelites that the God they have been crying out to for many years has now heard them, met with Moses, and sent him back to deliver them. If Moses comes in the name of some strange god that was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it could well be that Israel would have rejected him. Moses must come in the name of God that Israel is familiar with, and with signs to prove that Yahweh has indeed met with him and empowered him to deliver Israel from Egypt. When Moses did come back to Egypt in the name of Yahweh and with signs, the Israelites welcomed him. God made His covenant with Abraham, and reconfirmed it with Isaac and Jacob. The reason God mentions them in this context is that it emphasizes the covenant that God made with the “Fathers” which included giving them the land of Israel, so the Israelites would have to be delivered from Egypt for the covenant to be fulfilled.

 

[Peterlag]

The fruit of the spirit is the result of something. What is the result of the trinity?

 

[Matthias]

What is the result of the trinity?

Trinitarians.

 

[Kermos]

I am going to assume your answer is no... the trinity does not produce a way that you can live and walk in the spirit and be in fellowship with both God and Jesus Christ.

Peterlag, you wrongly assume a lot of things.

You wickedly change the Word of God "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) into the word of Peterlag "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I was just God's thought" (Peterlag's heart thought).

Your improper "Jesus had to come as God" reframed into the Biblical "Jesus came as Man" (Hebrews 2:16-18) is important. The illuminating Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is truly God and Jesus is truly Man (Philippians 2:6-8).

@Michiah-Imla and @Aunty Jane and @Peterlag, when you convey that John 8:58 would be correctly translated as "I am he", then your fool linguistics show in extreme clarity. YOU MIX IN THIRD PERSON WHERE THE THIRD PERSON IS NOT REPRESENTED IN THE SOURCE GREEK, so you try to smash your fistful of wickedness into Jesus' mouth.


"I AM" in John 8:58 is equivalent to "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 according to NT/Septuagint Greek.


It is necessary to believe that Jesus is God in order to enter Heaven because Lord Jesus says "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24) - and there's more about "I AM" and much Apostolic testimony that Jesus is God in this linked post. Jesus is YHWH God according to consistent Apostolic testimony, yet you deny Jesus because you deny consistent Apostolic testimony about Jesus being God.

You're question deceitfully starts with a non-sequitor because NO scripture states Jesus was "made". God says Jesus is God, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom" (Hebrews 1:8). THE WORD OF GOD DECLARES THAT JESUS IS TRULY MAN AND THAT JESUS IS TRULY GOD! You are a deceiver who thinks Jesus is not God, so you are a disbeliever preaching everlasting punishment unto yourself and your followers (Matthew 25:46).

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past and will exist in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5).

Jesus is God with us per the Apostle (Matthew 1:23), so Jesus is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8)!

 

[Wrangler]

But it was God the Word (the second person of the Trinity) who took a human body. But He never lost His deity for one moment.

Neat trick since he never had his deity for one moment, GIVEN he is a man (not merely in the form of a man) and there is no trinity in Scripture - not the word, not the concept.

 

[Wrangler]

I give you the whole Bible. Jesus is the Word, the exact expression of God.

If course you offer a theoretical mountain of evidence but is practice, you are foolishly relying on unitarian text to support trinitarian ideology.

The precise reason Jesus is only the expression of God is because he is not God. The exact voice recording of me is not me.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

If course you offer a theoretical mountain of evidence but is practice, you are foolishly relying on unitarian text to support trinitarian ideology.

The precise reason Jesus is only the expression of God is because he is not God. The exact voice recording of me is not me.

Well, when you bow your knee to Him and see Him face to face, you can tell Him that!