What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

@RLT63 in scripture Jesus is called anthropos (“man”) not theanthropos (“Godman”). The earliest reference to Jesus theanthropos is in Origen’s writing titled De Principiis, which dates to c. A.D. 220 …

An accurate English translation of what Paul wrote -

“For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, the man (Gk. anthropos) Christ Jesus”

(1 Timothy 2:5)

What Origen heard -

“For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, the Godman (Gk. theanthropos) Christ Jesus”

 

[Wrangler]

Again, this is a repeat of "But 3 Cannot Be 1".

It is always true that 3 cannot be 1.

 

[RLT63]

Right, the word, not God, became flesh. See the difference?

The word was God. It's in verse 1. If the word became flesh God became flesh. It's right there in John 1

 

[Matthias]

An accurate English translation of what Paul wrote -

“For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, the man (Gk. anthropos) Christ Jesus”

(1 Timothy 2:5)

What Origen heard -

“For there is one God, and also one mediator between God and men, the Godman (Gk. theanthropos) Christ Jesus”

A translation of 2 Timothy 2:5 which would raise the eyebrows of trinitarian scholars -

“For, you see, There is one God, and also one mediator between God and humans, King Jesus, himself a human being.”

(NTE)

The phrase “himself a human being” aligns perfectly with “Jesus is a human person” but does not align with trinitarian theology - “Jesus is not a human person”.

In trinitarian theology, Jesus is one of three persons in the one being of the Trinity. In that theology, Jesus is neither two persons nor two beings; Jesus is “human” - “fully human” - by means of taking upon himself impersonal human nature (Incarnation doctrine), but not a human person / human being.

 

[RLT63]

A translation of 2 Timothy 2:5 which would raise the eyebrows of trinitarian scholars -

“For, you see, There is one God, and also one mediator between God and humans, King Jesus, himself a human being.”

(NTE)

The phrase “himself a human being” aligns perfectly with “Jesus is a human person” but does not align with trinitarian theology - “Jesus is not a human person”.

In trinitarian theology, Jesus is one of three persons in the one being of the Trinity. In that theology, Jesus is neither two persons nor two beings; Jesus is “human” - “fully human” - by means of taking upon himself impersonal human nature (Incarnation doctrine), but not a human person / human being.

Can a man fathered by God be fully human? Son of God and Son of man

 

[Matthias]

Can a man fathered by God be fully human? Son of God and Son of man

Yes.

 

[Wrangler]

The word was God. It's in verse 1. If the word became flesh God became flesh. It's right there in John 1

You are making a substitution to justify your dogma. Scripture does not say God became incarnate. It just doesn't. I know you want it to so badly but alas, it only says the word became flesh. Why do you deny this fulfills Deuteronomy 18:15-18, that Phillip was so excited to tell Nathanial about - having NOTHING to do with God has become incarnate?


Philip went to look for Nathanael and told him, “We have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about! His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
John 1:45

 

[Peterlag]

The "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

 

[Matthias]

The "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Even at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 they made no attempt to define who or what the Holy Spirit is. The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 established the orthodox meaning. From that point forward, anyone who refused to adhere to the orthodox meaning was put out of the Church. Prior to the decision in A.D. 381 anyone who held a different understanding of the Holy Spirit was allowed in the Church.

Why don’t we ever hear that from the trinitarian members of the forum?

 

[RLT63]

You are making a substitution to justify your dogma. Scripture does not say God became incarnate. It just doesn't. I know you want it to so badly but alas, it only says the word became flesh. Why do you deny this fulfills Deuteronomy 18:15-18, that Phillip was so excited to tell Nathanial about - having NOTHING to do with God has become incarnate?


Philip went to look for Nathanael and told him, “We have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about! His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
John 1:45

The word was God. Even the worst translation says a god.

 

[RLT63]

Yes.

He was a man. That's true. But he was no ordinary man. He was God in the flesh.

 

[Matthias]

He was a man. That's true. But he was no ordinary man. He was God in the flesh.

That’s right. Where do we go from this point of agreement?

In different directions. This is the parting of the ways.

 

[Peterlag]

Even at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 they made no attempt to define who or what the Holy Spirit is. The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 established the orthodox meaning. From that point forward, anyone who refused to adhere to the orthodox meaning was put out of the Church. Prior to the decision in A.D. 381 anyone who held a different understanding of the Holy Spirit was allowed in the Church.

Why don’t we ever hear that from the trinitarian members of the forum?

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him” because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lower case such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

 

[RLT63]

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him” because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lower case such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

John 14:16 the Comforter is a he not an it

 

[Matthias]

John 14:16 the Comforter is a he not an it

“What strikes us here is the new name given to the Spirit - “another Comforter.” It is indeed only the name which is new. In idea it answers closely to the only promise of the Spirit which we find in the Synoptic Gospels. The expression ‘another Comforter’ implies that the disciples have already had experience of one, namely, Jesus Himself. As long as He was with them their strength was reinforced from Him and when He goes, His place is taken by the Spirit. There is another power with them now which does for them what Jesus did before. Yet is it really another? In 1 John 2:1 it is Jesus who is the Paraclete,* even after Pentecost, and even here (John 14:18), He says, ‘I come to you.’ The presence of the Spirit is Jesus’ own presence in Spirit.”

(James Denney, “Holy Spirit,” Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, p. 742)

P.S.

* I assumed that you’re aware that “the Paraclete” is “the Comforter”. As some of our readers may not be aware, I thought I should probably add this postscript for their benefit.

 

[Peterlag]

John 14:16 the Comforter is a he not an it

I call the comforter a he because I think in terms of Christ being in fellowship with me. But it's not Christ inside of me. It's what the Bible calls the spirit of Christ or the spirit of God. It's called either spirit of Christ or spirit of God because it's God in Christ in me. And that spirit is an it.

 

[Wrangler]

The word was God. Even the worst translation says a god.

I’m sure the best translation reads the word was a god, which is consistent with Jesus recognizing many lowercase-gods in John 10:34-35.


John 10:34-35
Names of God Bible

34 Yeshua said to them, “Don’t your Scriptures say, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 The Scriptures cannot be discredited. So if God calls people gods (and they are the people to whom he gave the Scriptures),

 

[RLT63]

I’m sure the best translation reads the word was a god, which is consistent with Jesus recognizing many lowercase-gods in John 10:34-35.


John 10:34-35
Names of God Bible

34 Yeshua said to them, “Don’t your Scriptures say, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 The Scriptures cannot be discredited. So if God calls people gods (and they are the people to whom he gave the Scriptures),

So the word was with God in the beginning?

 

[Wrangler]

So the word was with God in the beginning?

No. First there was God, who created his words.

 

[RLT63]

The "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord.