What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

Thank you for the information.

You’re welcome.

What do you think of the verse that says, God said, "Let US make man in OUR image."

To begin with, “God” is singular. It was suggested to me overnight by another member of the forums that “God” is plural. That idea has no support whatsoever in Hebrew Lexicons and there are no English language translations which render the word plural when referring to the deity of the Bible.

The “us” and the “our” in the passage doesn’t suggest to me that God is talking to himself. He’s addressing someone else. Who could that be? I agree with trinitarian commentators who say the addressed are the angelic court. Who else is there at that time for him to address?

The common objection, and I think a weak one, is that man is not created in the image of angels. That’s certainly true but it ignores angels also having been created in the image of God. Were they? If the discussion is limited to only that issue, it’s not uncommon for people to come to agreement that they were. Personally, I think that resolves the matter.

Some believe that this is a “hint” that “God is plural.” If that is so, why hint at it? Just out and say it. Thousands upon thousands of singular personal pronouns are used in reference to God. If God wanted to “hint” that he is singular, he couldn’t have picked a clearer way to do it than that. It would be virtually impossible to miss it.

 

[RLT63]

Except in this one. If you take it literally, then 'heaven and hell' are within speaking distance to one another.....and a drop of water on a man's finger will cool his tongue in a burning fire.....if you want to believe its a true account, you can, but its all symbolisms.

Its an illustration about the Pharisees and the "lost sheep" that they neglected and treated like dirt. The two swapped places with the Pharisees losing their place in Abraham's bosom (a position of favor with God) and the poor beggar gained it. The torment that the Pharisees endured was the condemnation by Jesus on account of their wicked self righteousness (read Matthew 23) and their attitude towards the ones they were suppose to shepherd. When Jesus told his parable about the "lost sheep" he conveyed God's deep love and concern for the poor and lowly ones.....the Pharisees were out to serve themselves favoring the rich.

It was before Jesus' blood had been offered. The saints were in Abraham's bosom. After the crucifixion the graves were opened and people who were dead arose and appeared to many

 

[RLT63]

You’re welcome.



To begin with, “God” is singular. It was suggested to me overnight by another member of the forums that “God” is plural. That idea has no support whatsoever in Hebrew Lexicons and there are no English language translations which render the word plural when referring to the deity of the Bible.

The “us” and the “our” in the passage doesn’t suggest to me that God is talking to himself. He’s addressing someone else. Who could that be? I agree with trinitarian commentators who say the addressed are the angelic court. Who else is there at that time for him to address?

The common objection, and I think a weak one, is that man is not created in the image of angels. That’s certainly true but it ignores angels also having been created in the image of God. Were they? If the discussion is limited to only that issue, it’s not uncommon for people to come to agreement that they were. Personally, I think that resolves the matter.

Some believe that this is a “hint” that “God is plural.” If that is so, why hint at it? Just out and say it. Thousands upon thousands of singular personal pronouns are used in reference to God. If God wanted to “hint” that he is singular, he couldn’t have picked a clearer way to do it than that. It would be virtually impossible to miss it.

Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Matthias]

Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22? | GotQuestions.org

Your source did well until it asserted, as an indisputable fact, that God is presented in the Bible, the NT especially, as Trinity. It isn’t. See the post-biblical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - centuries in the making.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jesus said no-one has seen God at any time. Mortal man cannot look upon God and live. That is why after the fall, there was needed a Mediator. Thus... The Son. The word of God. Intercessor. Mediator. Priest.

A mediator is a "go between" when two parties are at odds with each other. He facilitates communication between the two, so Jesus is the bridge that facilitates our communication with God.....our prayers must be delivered through Jesus.

God's spokesman. He walked and talked with Adam and Eve. With Manoah. Moses. But even the Son had to shield man from His glory, and even His back parts affected Moses such that he had to wear a veil.

No sorry, I cannot agree with that. At the transfiguration Peter, James and John saw Jesus in his glory. There was no shield then.

When Moses asked Him, show me Your glory, what was the response? It was revealed to Moses the name of the one He was speaking to.
KJV Exodus 34:6-8
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

Who was this? The Father upon whom none could look and live? Or God's Son, the Mediator of the covenant?

Read it in the Tanakh.....
"6 And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, ווַיַּֽעֲבֹ֨ר יְהֹוָ֥ה | עַל־פָּנָיו֘ וַיִּקְרָא֒ יְהֹוָ֣ה | יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֥ל רַח֖וּם וְחַנּ֑וּן אֶ֥רֶךְ אַפַּ֖יִם וְרַב־חֶ֥סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶֽת:"

It plainly states that it was "יְהֹוָ֔ה" and the setting here was when Moses received the Ten Commandments.....
Verses 4-6.....
"4 So he [Moses] hewed two stone tablets like the first ones, and Moses arose early in the morning and ascended Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and He called out in the name of the Lord."
On that occasion God came down in the cloud.....

Exodus 33:18-23 is when Moses asked to see God's glory....
"And he said: "Show me, now, Your glory!"

19 He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."

20 And He said, "You will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live."

21 And the Lord said: "Behold, there is a place with Me, and you shall stand on the rock. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה הִנֵּ֥ה מָק֖וֹם אִתִּ֑י וְנִצַּבְתָּ֖ עַל־הַצּֽוּר:

22 And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by.

23 Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back but My face shall not be seen."(Tanakh)
The physical protection of Moses was a concern to God....so he provided it.

So who was this? It says "the LORD" and it carries his name in the Hebrew text. We can speculate all we like, but the scripture says it was Yahweh.

 

[RLT63]

A mediator is a "go between" when two parties are at odds with each other. He facilitates communication between the two, so Jesus is the bridge that facilitates our communication with God.....our prayers must be delivered through Jesus.


No sorry, I cannot agree with that. At the transfiguration Peter, James and John saw Jesus in his glory. There was no shield then.


Read it in the Tanakh.....
"6 And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: Lord, Lord, benevolent God, Who is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness and truth, ווַיַּֽעֲבֹ֨ר יְהֹוָ֥ה | עַל־פָּנָיו֘ וַיִּקְרָא֒ יְהֹוָ֣ה | יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֥ל רַח֖וּם וְחַנּ֑וּן אֶ֥רֶךְ אַפַּ֖יִם וְרַב־חֶ֥סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶֽת:"

It plainly states that it was "יְהֹוָ֔ה" and the setting here was when Moses received the Ten Commandments.....
Verses 4-6.....
"4 So he [Moses] hewed two stone tablets like the first ones, and Moses arose early in the morning and ascended Mount Sinai as the Lord had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and He called out in the name of the Lord."
On that occasion God came down in the cloud.....

Exodus 33:18-23 is when Moses asked to see God's glory....
"And he said: "Show me, now, Your glory!"

19 He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."

20 And He said, "You will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live."

21 And the Lord said: "Behold, there is a place with Me, and you shall stand on the rock. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה הִנֵּ֥ה מָק֖וֹם אִתִּ֑י וְנִצַּבְתָּ֖ עַל־הַצּֽוּר:

22 And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by.

23 Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back but My face shall not be seen."(Tanakh)
The physical protection of Moses was a concern to God....so he provided it.

So who was this? It says "the LORD" and it carries his name in the Hebrew text. We can speculate all we like, but the scripture says it was Yahweh.

Yes they saw Jesus in his glory. If no one can see God's face and live how did Moses talk to him face to face?

 

[Matthias]

Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22? | GotQuestions.org

An additional thought. Readers should be aware that this is trinitarian commentary on scripture - not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Commentary is commentary. Commentary - trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike - may or may not be an adequate or accurate explanation of scripture.

Commentary doesn’t stand in place of scripture, isn’t on the same level as scripture and doesn’t absolve readers from the responsibility of thinking thoughtfully and critically about whatever the writer of the commentary is suggesting to us.

Commentary - again, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike - can be very helpful. It can also be biased, inadequate, inaccurate and misleading.

Commentary is just a tool.

What do you think about that?

 

[RLT63]

An additional thought. Readers should be aware that this is trinitarian commentary on scripture - not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Commentary is commentary. Commentary - trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike - may or may not be an adequate or accurate explanation of scripture.

Commentary doesn’t stand in place of scripture, isn’t on the same level as scripture and doesn’t absolve readers from the responsibility of thinking thoughtfully and critically about whatever the writer of the commentary is suggesting to us.

Commentary - again, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike - can be very helpful. It can also be biased, inadequate, inaccurate and misleading.

Commentary is just a tool.

What do you think about that?

We tend to like commentary that supports our view

 

[Johann]

Maybe you need to as well?

Lol!

 

[Matthias]

We tend to like commentary that supports our view

Yes. It’s a danger that we must all be on guard against.

There’s a narrative in some non-trinitarian circles that I find insufferable. It goes something like this: the early Church was unitarian but was invaded by trinitarians who took it over.

The narrative is historically inaccurate and unsupportable. It’s sloppy at best, and deceitful at worst.

*

I read trinitarian commentary almost exclusively. Why?

IF I’m mistaken about what I believe, where am I most likely to discover it?

By reading non-trinitarian commentary? or by reading trinitarian commentary?

Since I’m a non-trinitarian Christian, by reading trinitarian commentary.

 

[Johann]

What do you think about that?

Selective reading, I am not here to impose my beliefs upon you, but you are hell bent to do that to others and me.

 

[Renniks]

So you can't come up with 1 verse that tells us why Jesus had to be God?

Sure.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Matthias]

Selective reading, I am not here to impose my beliefs upon you, but you are hell bent to do that to others and me.

Your assertion about me is incorrect.

 

[RLT63]

Yes. It’s a danger that we must all be on guard against.

There’s a narrative in some non-trinitarian circles that I find insufferable. It goes something like this: the early Church was unitarian but was invaded by trinitarians who took it over.

The narrative is historically inaccurate and unsupportable. It’s sloppy at best, and deceitful at worst.

*

I read trinitarian commentary almost exclusively. Why?

IF I’m mistaken about what I believe, where am I most likely to discover it?

By reading non-trinitarian commentary? or by reading trinitarian commentary?

Since I’m a non-trinitarian Christian, by reading trinitarian commentary.

I like hearing other views too but there are some here that try to convince me that an apple is an orange

 

[Peterlag]

Sure.


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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]

You don’t care about these passages of scripture? How can we not be interested in, take into account, all passages of scripture in evaluating whatever it is that is presented to us?

I'm not concerned about Scripture that does not apply to me. Like when Paul is talking about the babes needing milk because I'm grown eating the meat of the Word. So reading about the flesh does not concern me because I walk in the spirit.

 

[Matthias]

I like hearing other views too but there are some here that try to convince me that an apple is an orange

Let’s not allow anyone to convince us that an apple is an orange.

Let’s also make sure we’re holding on to an apple when someone tells us we’re holding on to an orange, thinking it to be an apple.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Either that or he’s a fool.

I was thinking about a false assertion someone made about me this morning while I was waiting in the school carpool line to drop off my grandson: If I say something which a person hearing it isn’t persuaded is true, then they shouldn’t believe it.

 

[Peterlag]

John 10:30. Let's look at that...

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

 

[Peterlag]

I will do this John 10:33 for you too. Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

 

[Matthias]

I'm not concerned about Scripture that does not apply to me. Like when Paul is talking about the babes needing milk because I'm grown eating the meat of the Word. So reading about the flesh does not concern me because I walk in the spirit.

Thanks. I want to know what people believe and why they believe it. You provided that for me.

I’m a mature believer but I still drink milk with my meal.