What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Wrangler]

To much figurative speech can cause embellishments rather than literal truth, not saying there isn't any but I think the ones that may seem figurative needs investigating on a few levels before setting in stone figure of speech

Well, it goes without saying that one ought not approach learning what God's word is lightly.

Jesus spoke in parables. Obviously, these were all figurative. Also, I am reading the Complete Jewish Bible now. The author chose to write in one column to emphasize just how much of the OT is poetry, compared to narrative. And let's not forget Revelation, a remarkably figurative book.

 

[BeyondET]

Well, it goes without saying that one ought not approach learning what God's word is lightly.

Jesus spoke in parables. Obviously, these were all figurative. Also, I am reading the Complete Jewish Bible now. The author chose to write in one column to emphasize just how much of the OT is poetry, compared to narrative. And let's not forget Revelation, a remarkably figurative book.

Studying different bibles writings cultures etc. Is something I enjoy doing also, hope you find much in your studies

 

[BeyondET]

Seems even LORD has a LORD.

Hosea 12:5
Even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial.

 

[RLT63]

The pronouns in the Bible that refer to “God” are singular and there are lots of them. “The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain well over twenty thousand pronouns and verbs describing the One God” (Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound, International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998, p. 17). Singular pronouns include “I” “my” and “he.” We would expect it to say “For God so loved the world that they gave the Father’s only begotten Son….” if “God” were composed of three co-equal beings who each had their own mind and together agreed to send Christ. The fact that the pronouns in the Bible refer to “God” as a singular being is also evidence that there is no Trinity.

The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah. Psalm 110:1 merits special attention because it's especially clear but has been misunderstood and misrepresented by most English versions that read “The LORD says to my Lord….” The word “LORD” is Yahweh, but many Trinitarian commentators argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word "adonai" that is another name for God, and that would provide proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But the Hebrew text does not use "adonai" but rather "adoni" which is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God.

The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The use of the “son of man” in reference to the Messiah is one more piece of evidence that Jesus was fully human and one more reason that people were expecting the Messiah to be human. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40. Jesus was not being disingenuous and hiding his “divine nature” but rather was making a factual statement that reinforced what the Jews were expecting of the Messiah—that he would be a fully human man.

The apostles also taught Jesus was a man and we see this when the Apostle Peter spoke in his sermon to the crowds gathered on the Day of Pentecost making a very clear declaration that Jesus was a man approved of God: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you…” (Acts 2:22). Here Peter clearly taught that Jesus was a man and that God did miracles “by him.” Paul also taught Jesus was a man and we can see that when he was in Athens teaching a crowd of unsaved Gentiles about Jesus Christ and said that God would judge the world “by the man whom He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Paul never said or implied that Jesus was anything but a “man.”

He would also be called mighty God, everlasting Father and God with us Isaiah 9:6

 

[Peterlag]

Well, it goes without saying that one ought not approach learning what God's word is lightly.

Jesus spoke in parables. Obviously, these were all figurative. Also, I am reading the Complete Jewish Bible now. The author chose to write in one column to emphasize just how much of the OT is poetry, compared to narrative. And let's not forget Revelation, a remarkably figurative book.

Someone on here just told me figures of speech are not in the Bible. Yet we use them every minute in our culture. Why is it so hard to understand that they did thousands of years ago in other cultures?

 

[Peterlag]

He would also be called mighty God, everlasting Father and God with us Isaiah 9:6

You do realize that Jesus is not called the "Everlasting Father" anywhere else in Scripture? And that even Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the "Everlasting Father." The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age" and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the coming age." In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its father.

 

[RLT63]

You do realize that Jesus is not called the "Everlasting Father" anywhere else in Scripture? And that even Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the "Everlasting Father." The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age" and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the coming age." In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its father.

What about mighty God? God with us?

 

[Justbobg]

The Bible is a highly figurative book. Today I read in the NRSV how God told Abraham his descendants will be as the dust particles on Earth - if they could be counted.

I recall reading OT about the Wrath of God. In one verse, he said he would destroy all of Israel so not one survives. Just a few verses later, he says he will allow a remnant to carry on the line.

A scene in a TV show, Father Downey, had the priest say it is best not to take the LORD's words too literally.

It must be understood through Gods anointing spirit , all scriptures are inspired by Gods spirit . Man cannot piece it together as the spirit did , there are some errors because of the human element, but the spirit of the message is there , the spirit of God applies it as it is needed I have found , the more study the more I find . The word of God is beyond treasure to them that receive it from God . Amen :) always ask God for help he is more than willing to do so ! :)

 

[Wrangler]

Someone on here just told me figures of speech are not in the Bible. Yet we use them every minute in our culture. Why is it so hard to understand that they did thousands of years ago in other cultures?

Because they have an idol that has no explicit Biblical teaching. The only way they can generate "support" is by demanding certain expressions be interpretted in a way that appears to give life to their idol.

Like @RLT63 reliance in Post 2564 of an Isaiah passage referring to a child born in Isaiah's day but desperately re-purposing the post to "support" his idol. The more vague the text, the more they are adament it be taken to fit their idol.

 

[RLT63]

Because they have an idol that has no explicit Biblical teaching. The only way they can generate "support" is by demanding certain expressions be interpretted in a way that appears to give life to their idol.

Like @RLT63 reliance in Post 2564 of an Isaiah passage referring to a child born in Isaiah's day but desperately re-purposing the post to "support" his idol. The more vague the text, the more they are adament it be taken to fit their idol.

Who was this child born in Isaiah's day? Isaiah 9:6-7. Apparently his reign didn't last forever on the throne of David, neither did his kingdom if he was born in Isaiah's time. Is the Bible wrong?

 

[Wrangler]

Who was this child born in Isaiah's day? Isaiah 9:6-7. Apparently his reign didn't last forever on the throne of David, neither did his kingdom if he was born in Isaiah's time. Is the Bible wrong?

Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Aren’t the words of the verse that the child will be called these things?

Recognizing people say Donald Trump will be re-elected is not quite the same thing as narrating such an event. See the difference?

 

[RLT63]

Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Aren’t the words of the verse that the child will be called these things?

Recognizing people say Donald Trump will be re-elected is not quite the same thing as narrating such an event. See the difference?

Read verse 7 and tell me how that applies to anyone but Jesus. Your interpretation is wrong

 

[Matthias]

What about mighty God? God with us?

I have a margin reference to Ezekiel 32:21, where others are also called el gibbor. What does that tell us about the meaning of the Hebrew phrase?

 

[Peterlag]

What about mighty God? God with us?

May I have the verse?

 

[Wrangler]

Read verse 7 and tell me how that applies to anyone but Jesus. Your interpretation is wrong

Blatant Appeal to Ignorance. You are trying to change the burden of proof and suppose if I cannot convince you it applies to Person X, it must apply to your idol.

No. For 700 years Hebrews recognized this verse as not being prophetic. 1100 years after Isaiah wrote the text, trinitarians decided it would be cool to repurpose Isaiah’s words since there is otherwise to explicit teaching on the trinity in Scripture.

Jesus is not once called father in NT. It shows desperation for you to try to force the connection.

 

[GEN2REV]

I am reading the Complete Jewish Bible now. The author chose to write in one column to emphasize just how much of the OT is poetry, compared to narrative.

Do you really believe God's Word is poetry?

If you accept any part of Scripture as mere poetry, how do you put your Faith into anything contained therein? Couldn't the most profound passages be nothing but creative literature if that were the case?

Sincere question.

 

[GEN2REV]

Someone on here just told me figures of speech are not in the Bible. Yet we use them every minute in our culture. Why is it so hard to understand that they did thousands of years ago in other cultures?

Because the Bible was not written by men.

It was written by God. He is the author.

That's the difference.

God doesn't use meaningless figures of speech to inform the world of the most important facts of history and spirituality that could ever be pondered.

 

[Peterlag]

Blatant Appeal to Ignorance. You are trying to change the burden of proof and suppose if I cannot convince you it applies to Person X, it must apply to your idol.

No. For 700 years Hebrews recognized this verse as not being prophetic. 1100 years after Isaiah wrote the text, trinitarians decided it would be cool to repurpose Isaiah’s words since there is otherwise to explicit teaching on the trinity in Scripture.

Jesus is not once called father in NT. It shows desperation for you to try to force the connection.

Are you talking about Isaiah 9:6? I just posted that Jesus is not called the "Everlasting Father" anywhere else in Scripture. And that even Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the "Everlasting Father." The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age" and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the coming age." In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its father.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you really believe God's Word is poetry?

Yes, in part

If you accept any part of Scripture as mere poetry, how do you put your Faith into anything contained therein?

Discernment.

The Song of Songs is obviously poetry.

 

[Peterlag]

Because the Bible was not written by men.

It was written by God. He is the author.

That's the difference.

God doesn't use meaningless figures of speech to inform the world of the most important facts of history and spirituality that could ever be pondered.

One of the greatest Bible scholars and famous theologian E.W. Bullinger, has a lot of data on phrases classifying them into three distinct divisions: figures involving omission, addition, and change. He further breaks down whether figures affect the words themselves, the sense, meaning, order, or application of words.