What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Peterlag]

“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Hebrews 5:12-14)

Perhaps my eyes are getting up in years. Where exactly are the words "spirit of God" in the above verse?

 

[Peterlag]

“Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (1 Timothy 4:13-16)

My eyes must be getting up in years. Where in the above verse should I see "the spirit of God" needs my help?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

My eyes must be getting up in years. Where in the above verse should I see "the spirit of God" needs my help?

You are the one who needs the help provided by the Bible.

Or you are free to:

“…turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Timothy 4:4)

 

[APAK]

Many years ago I heard an evangelist who presented the Trinity in construction terms.

He said the Father is the owner of all things, the Son is the architect/creator of all things, and the Holy Spirit is the contractor that actually made all things from these plans. Together they are One Almighty God who created and sustain the universe.

Here's the God I actually read in scripture and it's because I do not won or wear any religious lenses that will shew my sight.

The Father who is the one true God or YHWH is the source of all things and owns it all indeed. His (WORD)word establishes, expresses and develops detailed instructions for his plans and purposes, and his own Spirit executes them all in creation and always has a 100 percent success record. My God the Father is composed of Spirit and Word (logos) - the complete eternal package.

The Son was created as the 2nd and last Adam who became the perfect HUMAN sacrifice for our fallen state and provided the gateway for our immortality into the Father's Kingdom. The Father also owns the Kingdom as well, as he is the one who chooses his Temple building where he dwells today, in the hearts of every true believer.

My God actually sets plans and purposes beside complete and eternal ownership of all things. He does things and is not passive or like a distant CEO of all affairs. He always thinks, he is the brain, and not like his created Son at all. The Son could do nothing on earth without the Father, and the same is still true today and tomorrow, regardless whether he is divine and immortal. He is given authority by his Father.

And his Son is not any utility or multiuse player either where he both creates everything and then suddenly became our lord and Savior at some time in history. He is only the latter Son, never the source of true and actual creation. He is a special creation and progressively became the perfect and completed human to divine Son at the 'right hand' of his Father, the one true God.

 

[Charlie24]

Here's the God I actually read in scripture and it's because I do not won or wear any religious lenses that will shew my sight.

The Father who is the one true God or YHWH is the source of all things and owns it all indeed. His (WORD)word establishes, expresses and develops detailed instructions for his plans and purposes, and his own Spirit executes them all in creation and always has a 100 percent success record. My God the Father is composed of Spirit and Word (logos) - the complete eternal package.

The Son was created as the 2nd and last Adam who became the perfect HUMAN sacrifice for our fallen state and provided the gateway for our immortality into the Father's Kingdom. The Father also owns the Kingdom as well, as he is the one who chooses his Temple building where he dwells today, in the hearts of every true believer.

My God actually sets plans and purposes beside complete and eternal ownership of all things. He does things and is not passive or like a distant CEO of all affairs. He always thinks, he is the brain, and not like his created Son at all. The Son could do nothing on earth without the Father, and the same is still true today and tomorrow, regardless whether he is divine and immortal. He is given authority by his Father.

And his Son is not any utility or multiuse player either where he both creates everything and then suddenly became our lord and Savior at some time in history. He is only the latter Son, never the source of true and actual creation. He is a special creation and progressively became the perfect and completed human to divine Son at the 'right hand' of his Father, the one true God.

No, Christ was not created. He was in the beginning with God the Father and was God Himself.

Gen. 1:26
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

God the Father did not act alone in creation!

Where the confusion comes in is that Christ emptied Himself of His expression of deity, but could not empty Himself of the fact He was deity.

Phil 2:6-8
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Christ was equal with God and was indeed God before creation. He lowered Himself to that of a man (God in the flesh) and became a servant, obedient unto the Father for the agreed purpose to redeem man.

He gave up His power as God the Creator for you, my friend, in order to redeem you from your sins.

There was no other way for man to be redeemed. This is why Christ came and lived a perfect life, keeping the Law perfectly. By doing so, He earned the righteousness of the Law that no other man could do. Earning this righteousness of the Law which is God the Father's standard of righteousness, Christ made it possible for us to gain that righteousness by faith in Him. This is the righteousness that is imputed to the one who believes in Christ. It's a free gift from the Father.

 

[Matthias]

He’s definitely using the term “trinity” (even using the phrase “unity in trinity”) and that’s what trinitarians latch on to. However, even trinitarian scholars (Catholic and Protestant) acknowledge that he doesn’t pass the test of orthodoxy. In historical context, he couldn’t.

Tertullian certainly links belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or Ghost) with salvation. Ask any binitarian if they do too. Ask any unitarian if they do too. All Christians do.

Tertullian “the orthodox trinitarian” is a fiction.

The Church is moving away from unitarian monotheism, toward trinitarian monotheism, in his days, but it wasn’t there yet. Tertullian is caught in the transition period, and he’s not the only one.

Perhaps you’ve heard people say that Tertullian (and other prominent figures in the Church prior to Nicaea and, later, Chalcedon) would have embraced orthodoxy if he had lived to see it. Maybe he would have, but that’s a matter of speculation.

I think we must allow people to be what they actually were. Tertullian wasn’t a Jewish unitary monotheist (which is what I am) but neither was he an orthodox trinitarian (which is what trinitarians tend to make him out to be.) Dr. Dale Tuggy (a non-trinitarian colleague of mine) makes a case for Tertullian being a unitarian, which sounds odd at first blush given the “trinity” word in Tertullian’s mouth. I’ll try to locate it and post it for anyone who might be interested in reading it.

“Hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for [Tertullian] does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”

(Michael O’Carroll, Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, p.208)

 

[Phoneman777]

I believe the dead in Christ will be raised from the dead. What gets up I have been asking since I was 20 years old. I could not care less where they go after they are up. I'm all ears if you know what gets up.

Chiasms are found throughout Scripture contained in singular verses or in entire passages (like the Book of Revelation which is one giant Chiasm) and are instances where not words, but ideas are rhymed, as in this case of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 KJV:

A. died (death)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (death)
B. bring (resurrection)

The Chiasm has "A" rhyming with "A" and "B" rhyming with "B". Left intact, it prevents us from erroneously concluding this verse supports the popular but false idea that "Jesus is going to bring Grandma and Grandpa from heaven with Him across the the vast expanse of space when He comes back in glory", which conclusion destroys the Chiasm -- because it causes the one "B" to no longer rhyme with the other "B":

A. died (died)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (died)
B. bring (cosmic constellational road trip across the stars)

Therefore, preservation of the chiasm demands only one possible interpretation: "For if we believe Jesus died and rose again, them also which sleep in Jesus God also will bring with Him -- or -- bring them forth from the tomb in the same manner God did bring Jesus forth from the tomb".

Chiasms: definitely not "milk" but every bit as nutritious.

 

[APAK]

No, Christ was not created. He was in the beginning with God the Father and was God Himself.

So how can he be both God and also be with God?! You just said with the Father who you don't believe is the one God then, right? A riddle that goes back the the days of Philo and Origen. And they were never really satisfied with it. Philo of Alexandria believed the Father only was God. He believed the Son was CREATED. He is one of the most influential philosophers of Christ's time for the development of the Trinity concept. Go figure right?

If you believe this impossible complexion and awkward nature of the Son of the Father, of his origin, current disposition and of his future, and not recorded in scripture, then I would want to know with complete surety, founded on solid ground, right?

And then there should be dozens of questions you must answer about it to be sure. Just saying it is so based of what you have been taught or what you want to think it says in scripture is not enough. You must rigorously test your hypothesis to even provide a theory and then as fact. This concept that the Son is also God never even became a true working theory let a alone a fact.

So what was the Son actually doing, his actual work before he pre-existed? A messenger, creating more of the Universe, helping the Father in heaven doing something..?
What was he actually doing the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life?
Where was he the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life? On the earth, in heaven...?
Did he actually transform himself into a new life at his conception? How did he do it?
Did he have help transforming himself into a new life 'on' earth? Did the Father help him incarnate? And then how did this affect the Father at that time?
If he was God as you say, who or what kept his essence of divinity for safekeeping as you might also believe? Did the Father absorb it and keep it for him whilst on earth? Where was it stored, in a heavenly divine essence vault?
Did the Son of God actually die on the Cross? And if he did not then what or who died or did no one die? And then based on your answer here there are many more questions to add.
Today, do you still believe the Son of God is God, as the source of power that is only given to the Son by his Father God? And then why is not the Son of God not the source of power, only the Father? There must be an order of superiority it would seem, right?

I could write many dozens more questions....

I do not believe you can answer any of these questions with any high degree of confidence if you believe the Son is both of the Father and also equal with the Father God.

And using misapplied/ misinterpreted and grossly mistranslated scripture won't cut it either.

I would want to know that my assertion about both the nature of the Father of the Son is true, especially if my life's spirituality and belief is based on Yahshua the Christ, the Son of God existing before his human conception as God.

 

[Peterlag]

Chiasms are found throughout Scripture contained in singular verses or in entire passages (like the Book of Revelation which is one giant Chiasm) and are instances where not words, but ideas are rhymed, as in this case of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 KJV:

A. died (death)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (death)
B. bring (resurrection)

The Chiasm has "A" rhyming with "A" and "B" rhyming with "B". Left intact, it prevents us from erroneously concluding this verse supports the popular but false idea that "Jesus is going to bring Grandma and Grandpa from heaven with Him across the the vast expanse of space when He comes back in glory", which conclusion destroys the Chiasm -- because it causes the one "B" to no longer rhyme with the other "B":

A. died (died)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (died)
B. bring (cosmic constellational road trip across the stars)

Therefore, preservation of the chiasm demands only one possible interpretation: "For if we believe Jesus died and rose again, them also which sleep in Jesus God also will bring with Him -- or -- bring them forth from the tomb in the same manner God did bring Jesus forth from the tomb".

Chiasms are found throughout Scripture contained in singular verses or in entire passages (like the Book of Revelation which is one giant Chiasm) and are instances where not words, but ideas are rhymed, as in this case of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 KJV:

A. died (death)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (death)
B. bring (resurrection)

The Chiasm has "A" rhyming with "A" and "B" rhyming with "B". Left intact, it prevents us from erroneously concluding this verse supports the popular but false idea that "Jesus is going to bring Grandma and Grandpa from heaven with Him across the the vast expanse of space when He comes back in glory", which conclusion destroys the Chiasm -- because it causes the one "B" to no longer rhyme with the other "B":

A. died (died)
B. rose again (resurrection)
A. sleep (died)
B. bring (cosmic constellational road trip across the stars)

Therefore, preservation of the chiasm demands only one possible interpretation: "For if we believe Jesus died and rose again, them also which sleep in Jesus God also will bring with Him -- or -- bring them forth from the tomb in the same manner God did bring Jesus forth from the tomb".

"bring them forth from the tomb in the same manner God did bring Jesus forth from the tomb" fits with the scope of the Word I understand. Thank You.

 

[Charlie24]

So how can he be both God and also be with God?! You just said with the Father who you don't believe is the one God then, right? A riddle that goes back the the days of Philo and Origen. And they were never really satisfied with it. Philo of Alexandria believed the Father only was God. He believed the Son was CREATED. He is one of the most influential philosophers of Christ's time for the development of the Trinity concept. Go figure right?

If you believe this impossible complexion and awkward nature of the Son of the Father, of his origin, current disposition and of his future, and not recorded in scripture, then I would want to know with complete surety, founded on solid ground, right?

And then there should be dozens of questions you must answer about it to be sure. Just saying it is so based of what you have been taught or what you want to think it says in scripture is not enough. You must rigorously test your hypothesis to even provide a theory and then as fact. This concept that the Son is also God never even became a true working theory let a alone a fact.

So what was the Son actually doing, his actual work before he pre-existed? A messenger, creating more of the Universe, helping the Father in heaven doing something..?
What was he actually doing the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life?
Where was he the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life? On the earth, in heaven...?
Did he actually transform himself into a new life at his conception? How did he do it?
Did he have help transforming himself into a new life 'on' earth? Did the Father help him incarnate? And then how did this affect the Father at that time?
If he was God as you say, who or what kept his essence of divinity for safekeeping as you might also believe? Did the Father absorb it and keep it for him whilst on earth? Where was it stored, in a heavenly divine essence vault?
Did the Son of God actually die on the Cross? And if he did not then what or who died or did no one die? And then based on your answer here there are many more questions to add.
Today, do you still believe the Son of God is God, as the source of power that is only given to the Son by his Father God? And then why is not the Son of God not the source of power, only the Father? There must be an order of superiority it would seem, right?

I could write many dozens more questions....

I do not believe you can answer any of these questions with any high degree of confidence if you believe the Son is both of the Father and also equal with the Father God.

And using misapplied/ misinterpreted and grossly mistranslated scripture won't cut it either.

I would want to know that my assertion about both the nature of the Father of the Son is true, especially if my life's spirituality and belief is based on Yahshua the Christ, the Son of God existing before his human conception as God.

The question that theologians cannot answer is the existence of the Trinity as we have the ability to understand as humans.

How can three distinct persons be ONE God? It has already been determined that the unity/essence of the One God is not all that's revealed in Scripture.

It cannot be explained within the realm of human thinking! So we have much confusion over what we call the Trinity.

The word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture, it's a term of identification, such as your name.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A beginningless beginning.

Apparently.....no one can say that God had a “beginning” because he is “King of eternity”...immortal.

 

[Charlie24]

So how can he be both God and also be with God?! You just said with the Father who you don't believe is the one God then, right? A riddle that goes back the the days of Philo and Origen. And they were never really satisfied with it. Philo of Alexandria believed the Father only was God. He believed the Son was CREATED. He is one of the most influential philosophers of Christ's time for the development of the Trinity concept. Go figure right?

If you believe this impossible complexion and awkward nature of the Son of the Father, of his origin, current disposition and of his future, and not recorded in scripture, then I would want to know with complete surety, founded on solid ground, right?

And then there should be dozens of questions you must answer about it to be sure. Just saying it is so based of what you have been taught or what you want to think it says in scripture is not enough. You must rigorously test your hypothesis to even provide a theory and then as fact. This concept that the Son is also God never even became a true working theory let a alone a fact.

So what was the Son actually doing, his actual work before he pre-existed? A messenger, creating more of the Universe, helping the Father in heaven doing something..?
What was he actually doing the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life?
Where was he the second/moment before he was conceived into 'another' life? On the earth, in heaven...?
Did he actually transform himself into a new life at his conception? How did he do it?
Did he have help transforming himself into a new life 'on' earth? Did the Father help him incarnate? And then how did this affect the Father at that time?
If he was God as you say, who or what kept his essence of divinity for safekeeping as you might also believe? Did the Father absorb it and keep it for him whilst on earth? Where was it stored, in a heavenly divine essence vault?
Did the Son of God actually die on the Cross? And if he did not then what or who died or did no one die? And then based on your answer here there are many more questions to add.
Today, do you still believe the Son of God is God, as the source of power that is only given to the Son by his Father God? And then why is not the Son of God not the source of power, only the Father? There must be an order of superiority it would seem, right?

I could write many dozens more questions....

I do not believe you can answer any of these questions with any high degree of confidence if you believe the Son is both of the Father and also equal with the Father God.

And using misapplied/ misinterpreted and grossly mistranslated scripture won't cut it either.

I would want to know that my assertion about both the nature of the Father of the Son is true, especially if my life's spirituality and belief is based on Yahshua the Christ, the Son of God existing before his human conception as God.

Most of the questions you present here cannot be answered. The Scripture takes no effort to explain it, which means it's not meant for us to understand, or we in this mortal body are not capable of understanding.

There is some indication that all these things will be answered at the point of the resurrection, when the mortal puts on the immortal. With this change the unknown will be known.

 

[Matthias]

Apparently.....no one can say that God had a “beginning” because he is “King of eternity”...immortal.

Origen’s fingerprints are on this “beginningless beginning” idea - eternal generation.

 

[Charlie24]

Apparently.....no one can say that God had a “beginning” because he is “King of eternity”...immortal.

True that God has no beginning!

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

"The beginning" written in Scripture is referring to the beginning of creation.

If you believe that the rebellion of Satan and his angelic followers caused the original creation to become "without form and void" (Gen. 1:2) as I do, "the beginning" is also a referral to the re-creation in Genesis.

 

[RLT63]

Origen’s fingerprints are on this “beginningless beginning” idea - eternal generation.

I appreciate you making me think and study. There is value in these conversations.

 

[Matthias]

I appreciate you making me think and study. There is value in these conversations.

Iron sharpening iron. You’re doing the same for me, and I greatly appreciate it.

Are you familiar with Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Moody Bible College? (I’ll be adding an interesting quote from him in this discussion.)

Right now, I’m off to supper.

 

[Charlie24]

I appreciate you making me think and study. There is value in these conversations.

You just hit on one of the two reasons I'm on these boards.

It helps my now lazy self to keep learning the Word.

The other is to help those who need help in the knowledge of the salvation of our Lord.

Iron sharpening iron. You’re doing the same for me, and I greatly appreciate it.

Are you familiar with Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Moody Bible College? (I’ll be adding an interesting quote from him in this discussion.)

Right now, I’m off to supper.

Love Mr. Wuest, read all his work that I can get my hands on.

A Greek scholar who had much knowledge in the Scripture!

 

[Peterlag]

The question that theologians cannot answer is the existence of the Trinity as we have the ability to understand as humans.

How can three distinct persons be ONE God? It has already been determined that the unity/essence of the One God is not all that's revealed in Scripture.

It cannot be explained within the realm of human thinking! So we have much confusion over what we call the Trinity.

The word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture, it's a term of identification, such as your name.

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Since its his word I suggest you ask him.

I asked a lot of questions a long time ago and continue to ask questions to this day....and the answers have been given within the framework of God’s original purpose for mankind on this earth.

He answered me in the scriptures......
the word “beginning” is the same in both Hebrew and Greek even though many try to make it mean something else. When we speak about a “beginning” in English, it is not an ambiguous word.....it’s the start of something. Can we agree on that?
Yahweh is “King of eternity” and the only living being in existence who was said to have an immortal existence.

Jesus is “King of kings”, (earthly kings) but before his mission as a human, he was not immortal, otherwise he could not give his life for mankind. He had to be 100% mortal human in order to die for us, which rules out his being God incarnate.....the reason why Jesus could not be God incarnate. Immortals cannot die.

The Father simply transferred the lifeforce of his spirit son into the womb of the earthly host that he had chosen to raise his son in human form. We have to understand why he needed to be born as a human child and raised as a devout Jew.

We can confuse immortality with everlasting life....but they are not the same at all. Giving both humans and angels everlasting life (obviously through different means as they are different lifeforms) we see that God provided the means for life to continue in the heavenly realm as well as on earth. It also means that God can terminate their lives if they abuse their free will, as satan and the angels as well as the humans he has managed to corrupt, will experience in the future. But “immortality” is literally “the power of an indestructible life”.....nothing can kill an immortal.

Initially, only God was immortal, but as a reward for serving their God faithfully to their death, both the son and his elect are granted immortal life in heaven, given a higher form of life than any other living things....except of course God himself. He will always remain the Sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. And Jesus will always be the King of kings because the ones who rule with him in heaven, even though they too are kings, will be subject to him and his Father during the rulership of his kingdom. (Revelation 20:6)

If Jesus tells us himself that he has a God, even in heaven (Revelation 3:12) and that he is “the beginning of God’s creation” then we can believe him. (Revelation 3:14) Can’t we?

 

[Matthias]

Love Mr. Wuest, read all his work that I can get my hands on.

A Greek scholar who had much knowledge in the Scripture!

You may have read the book I’m quoting from then, Great Truths To Live By.

”Jesus is God only begotten, proceeding by eternal generation from the Father in a birth that never took place because it always was.”

(Kenneth Wuest, Great Truths To Live By, p. 30)

The “eternal generation” he mentioned is what Dr. Neve (a Lutheran scholar) called “Origen’s helpful suggestion”.