What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[RLT63]

All I want is a verse or two that say why Jesus had to come as God. Nobody can give me a verse. Something is really wrong with this. If Jesus had to be God and come to the earth. Then how come the Bible does not tell us why that happened? Would not something like that be important?

Have you found a verse that says why God wants us to worship him?

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus said he had the power to do it.

Who could have raised Jesus from the dead was not the question. Who actually DID raise Jesus from the dead is the question?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Answers to the question vary.

My answer (Jewish monotheism) is incompatible with the answers given by trinitarians, binitarians and the majority of unitarians.

Jesus existed before Abraham but Jesus isn’t older than Abraham; Jesus is younger than Abraham.

A valid point. The man Jesus did not exist before Abraham and was descended from him in a direct lineage, all recorded in Scripture. But the spirit being who became the man Jesus certainly did exist before Abraham. As the “only begotten Son of God” he was the facilitator of all creation, including all that exists in the spirit realm. (Colossians 1:15-17; John 1:2-3)

He was not “begotten” at his human birth, but has been by his Father’s side since his creation. He has always be God’s “firstborn”. (Proverbs 8:30-31; Revelation 3:14)
Only the trinity forbids this fact because it cannot reconcile that God and his son are completely separate beings, one is clearly in complete subordination to one he calls his God and Father.

The holy spirit is not a person. Greek grammar is in play when the holy spirit is called “he” because the language has gender (like French) the “Paraclete” is masculine gender, and is therefore rendered with masculine pronouns. The holy spirit is the administration of God’s powerful energy. It is given in due time and in due measure for the task assigned. The scriptures confirm that this energy can facilitate supernatural deeds and is given by the Father to his son at his baptism. Jesus could then empower his apostles to perform supernatural deeds with the mention of his name. After Jesus ascended to heaven, God sent the holy spirit to anoint Jesus disciples at Pentecost. They then could carry on the work Jesus started under the same power that God had given him. It was there to facilitate the growth of Christianity in difficult circumstance, until the strength of the congregations was sufficient to stand up to the opposition that Jesus said would come. (John 15:18-21) The power of God’s spirit in this physical expression died with the apostles, but continued with the genuine Christians even after the weeds were sown by the devil. It strengthened them to carry on the work assigned to them. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus wasn’t telling his ex-followers - and therefore he isn’t telling us - that he is older than Abraham. He isn’t telling them, nor is he telling us, that he is God himself.

Exactly....he is telling them that he existed before Abraham because they had asked him a question about his age, not his deity. In his spirit form, he did exist before Abraham.

Jesus is positionally before Abraham. His ex-followers once believed that he was, but no longer did. They believed that Abraham is greater than Jesus, whom they have now rejected.

The Jews put great store in being “sons of Abraham”....but John the Baptist put them straight on that point...
“When he caught sight of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism, he said to them: “You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore, produce fruit that befits repentance. 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire.“
The ax fell, and the trees were cut down.....(Matthew 23:37-39)

This is all about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah.

Their Messiah was not going to be God incarnate and not once did Jesus ever claim to be his Father’s equal, reinforced by the fact that Jesus addresses his Father as “my God” even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

 

[Wrangler]

Will our dog be in heaven with us?

DK but I hope.

 

[Aunty Jane]

"He "

Greek grammar contains gender much like French....everything has a gender, when no actual gender is meant. Ships are not female, yet are referred to as such. Same principle.

The holy spirit is the “Paraclete”, and this word is masculine gender in Greek and is rendered with masculine pronouns.....there is no “he” in reality...only in the rendering of this language’s grammar.
Perhaps a little more research would reward you with facts rather than to rely on the fantasy that has been fed to you by Christendom.....?

 

[RLT63]

Who could have raised Jesus from the dead was not the question. Who actually DID raise Jesus from the dead is the question?

John 2;19-21

 

[Wrangler]

The conspiracy is not the Jews reverence for God but trinitarians blurring God’s name with the name of his chosen suffering servant.

Have you ever explained that? Have you ever explained the many juxtapositions of God from Jesus? Why in Acts 17:31 does it say God chose or appointed Jesus IF Jesus where God?

John 6:38-40 Where did Jesus come from? Who will raise us up?

Just ignore question to you and ask your own. That’s intellectually honest.

Cricket … Cricket … Cricket …

 

[RLT63]

Greek grammar contains gender much like French....everything has a gender, when no actual gender is meant. Ships are not female, yet are referred to as such. Same principle.

The holy spirit is the “Paraclete”, and this word is masculine gender in Greek and is rendered with masculine pronouns.....there is no “he” in reality...only in the rendering of this language’s grammar.
Perhaps a little more research would reward you with facts rather than to rely on the fantasy that has been fed to you by Christendom.....?

Your condescending tone doesn't change the facts.

 

[Wrangler]

All I want is a verse or two that say why Jesus had to come as God. Nobody can give me a verse. Something is really wrong with this. If Jesus had to be God and come to the earth. Then how come the Bible does not tell us why that happened? Would not something like that be important?

So focused are they that God is a trinity, they just can’t bring themselves to answer the question of what benefit is there to it.

 

[Matthias]

If I read the Bible with no foreknowledge of the Trinity I would conclude something similar to what was said in the discussion you posted of Origen. That Jesus was with God in the beginning and he is God and that he and God are One.

I often ask trinitarians what they would believe if they could read the Bible with no foreknowledge of the Trinity. That’s the way scripture was written. That’s the way scripture was read for centuries. Results vary and are fascinating.

It’s a difficult exercise to pull off.

Trinitarians sometimes direct my attention to Tertullian. Few direct me to Origen. Origen made greater contributions to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. He’s a somewhat forgotten figure, I think in large part because the Church later deemed him to be a heretic.

Tertullian believed that God was only one person until the moment of creation; the Son and the Holy Spirit existing internally, only in his mind, until then. We observe him modifying unitarianism in his thinking. He was also later deemed a heretic by the Church.

How the doctrine of the Trinity came to be is a fascinating study. Preachers rarely talk about it, at least not from the pulpit, and church-goers typically have little interest in it, don’t study it, and don’t want to hear it. JAT is of the “I don’t need to know the details of how we got here. All I need to know is that here we are” mindset. I think that’s a pity; people should be grounded in history.

Would a person who becomes aware of the history behind how the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated still believe the doctrine? I think that depends on the person.

The history behind how, when, where, why, and by whom the doctrine came to be established in Christianity will disquiet some and not trouble others in the least.

 

[Wrangler]

John 2;19-21

Can’t answer the question so rely on copy and paste to make the argument for you. Again.

 

[John Caldwell]

Right... it says in Christ man is reconciled. It does not say in God man is reconciled.

It says that God was reconciling Himself to man.

 

[RLT63]

Can’t answer the question so rely on copy and paste to make the argument for you. Again.

Just read the scripture I assume you can do that. I already addressed it but you dismissed it so I provided the scriptures

 

[RLT63]

So focused are they that God is a trinity, they just can’t bring themselves to answer the question of what benefit is there to it.

Why does God want us to worship him? Can you find one verse that says why?

 

[Wrangler]

Just read the scripture I assume you can do that.

Still ignoring the question I asked about juxtaposition and who - in Acts 17:31 - raised Jesus from the dead.

Amazing that you complain @Aunty Jane is condescending while you chuck and dive my questions.

 

[Wrangler]

The conspiracy is not the Jews reverence for God but trinitarians blurring God’s name with the name of his chosen suffering servant.

Have you ever explained that? Have you ever explained the many juxtapositions of God from Jesus? Why in Acts 17:31 does it say God chose or appointed Jesus IF Jesus where God?

Why does God want us to worship him? Can you find one verse that says why?

Just change subject.

Cricket … Cricket … Cricket …

 

[Aunty Jane]

It says that God was reconciling Himself to man.

Can God do that without the role played by his Christ?
Why do we need reconciliation?
What role does Jesus play in that reconciliation....and why did he need to be appointed as “mediator between God and man” if he himself was God?

 

[RLT63]

I often ask trinitarians what they would believe if they could read the Bible with no foreknowledge of the Trinity. That’s the way scripture was written. That’s the way scripture was read for centuries. Results vary and are fascinating.

It’s a difficult exercise to pull off.

Trinitarians sometimes direct my attention to Tertullian. Few direct me to Origen. Origen made greater contributions to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. He’s a somewhat forgotten figure, I think in large part because the Church later deemed him to be a heretic.

Tertullian believed that God was only one person until the moment of creation; the Son and the Holy Spirit existing internally, only in his mind, until then. We observe him modifying unitarianism in his thinking. He was also later deemed a heretic by the Church.

How the doctrine of the Trinity came to be is a fascinating study. Preachers rarely talk about it, at least not from the pulpit, and church-goers typically have little interest in it, don’t study it, and don’t want to hear it. JAT is of the “I don’t need to know the details of how we got here. All I need to know is that here we are” mindset. I think that’s a pity; people should be grounded in history.

Would a person who becomes aware of the history behind how the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated still believe the doctrine? I think that depends on the person.

The history behind how, when, where, why, and by whom the doctrine came to be established in Christianity will disquiet some and not trouble others in the least.

It doesn't trouble me.

 

[RLT63]

Just change subject.

I wasn't addressing the post you quoted.

 

[Matthias]

So focused are they that God is a trinity, they just can’t bring themselves to answer the question of what benefit is there to it.

It doesn’t matter as much to them as it did in days past. A large and growing percentage say that it’s not a salvation issue. We’re a long way from the anathema of the Athanasian Creed.

They still believe it’s true but it’s become an academic issue. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t matter if anyone believes it or not. It’s become negotiable and optional in the minds of many.

The line in the sand used to be the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. That’s an old battleground where skirmishes still occur because there are still trinitarians who believe that it does matter and that it is a salvation issue. Time is passing it by. Frankly, as an ex-trinitarian, that astonishes me.

The hotly contested battleground is the deity of Christ. This is now the line in the sand for most, but not all, trinitarians. Unlike the Trinity, it’s generally not negotiable or optional. It’s a salvation issue in the minds of most. This the frontline.