What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[RLT63]

What do you mean?

Just kidding. Someone reminded me I was off topic yesterday.

 

[Heart2Soul]

He is on a 3 month vacation.

 

[Heart2Soul]

where do you all find the emojis .

Click the smiley face above and then click Angelina's emojis

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

That's a lie that I'll ask you to retract. What I've said is accurate and true. What you have said is not.

This while you lecture about people who don't care about the truth.



Did God's angel instruct Mary to name him Immanuel as you insist? No. And now you are lying about your lying.

Just stop.

I will NEVER retract calling you out for your published posts being lies against the name of Immanuel.

When you claim Matthew 1 and Isaiah do not exist,which is what you're saying with the slander and lie where you claim what you have against the name Immanuel.

When the Bible scriptures are there for all to read and you claim no one told Mary to call her baby Immanuel, you're a liar!

And given it is blasphemy of the holy spirit, when God was Jesus/Immanuel, and it was God's angel that informed Mary she was to call her pending child Immanuel, as was also in prophecy in Isaiah 7, you're a damned liar.


No Christian alive slanders the scripture and lies about its existence when it has existed since and even before the printing press was invented.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Just kidding. Someone reminded me I was off topic yesterday.

I thought the smileys would tell you I knew you were kidding. As was I.

 

[Matthias]

Does anyone here remember Hank Hanegraaff, “The Bible Answer Man”?

Well just I’m case anyone is wondering, I’m not him. (I had the thought over dinner - lunch - today that a particular member of the forum may perceive me that way.)

I don’t have all the answers. There are things in scripture which I’m just not sure about. There are things in scripture which I understand and things in scripture which I either don’t or may not understand.

I read scripture now through a different lens than I did when I was a trinitarian. That produces an understanding which is sometimes compatible with the understanding I had as a trinitarian but other times and often incompatible with that understanding.

I tell people what I believe and why I believe it. I ask the same of others.

I reserve the right to change my mind if I become persuaded about something. Which is to say, I keep an open mind and reserve the right to repent.

I’m a teacher and a preacher. (Retired.) I am what I am, and trouble comes with the territory. It’s a common tale among teachers and preachers.

 

[Matthias]

Its simply the most accurate . I can actually read it aloud and read it in modern enlgish as i do . The problem
with a lot of newer versions is they actually changed what it means to fit what they THINK it should mean .
The worst so called bible ever wrote is the message , followed by the NIV . The message is bad news in many places

I think all translations have their pluses and minuses, their strengths and weakness. I primarily use NASB (my workhorse) but I like NABRE* for casual reading. I rotate Bibles from time to time, as that often stimulates my mind. Reading only one translation can dull my mind. I habitually consult multiple translations when preparing an academic presentation or preparing a sermon (back in the day), and now when contemplating how to respond to a post on the forums. And sometimes out of consideration for the person I’m speaking with.

More information is a available today than was available when KJV (and many other translations) were published. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New information can enhance our understanding of what is written in scripture.

P.S.

* For those who may not know, NABRE is a Roman Catholic translation. I haven’t noticed anyone else quoting from it on the forums and I have no objection to using trinitarian translations of the Bible.

 

[Mr E]

Yes indeed .

It’s delusional.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

That's a lie that I'll ask you to retract. What I've said is accurate and true. What you have said is not.

This while you lecture about people who don't care about the truth.



Did God's angel instruct Mary to name him Immanuel as you insist? No. And now you are lying about your lying.

Just stop.

Your post:
What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

The Bible:
Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, Immanu’ El. 'El=God
with us.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb]">[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Immanuel - Bible Meaning and Definition "God with Us"
The birth of Immanuel to the virgin Mary fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, the sign given to Ahaz about seven hundred years earlier. At that time the wicked Ahaz ignored Isaiah's advice and appealed to the king of Assyria for help in a political crisis. Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8, 10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies—the kings of Samaria and Damascus—will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732b.c.). The birth of a boy who would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was"with" his people just as he had promised to be with them constantly.



Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”


Bible Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary - Immanuel
Immanuel, [N] [E] [H]
that is, God with us , the title applied by the apostle Matthew to the Messiah, born of the Virgin, ( Matthew 1:23 ; Isaiah 7:14 ) because Jesus was God united with man, and showed that God was dwelling with men.

Edit/link fixed

 

[Mr E]

I will NEVER retract calling you out for your published posts being lies against the name of Immanuel.

When you claim Matthew 1 and Isaiah do not exist,which is what you're saying with the slander and lie where you claim what you have against the name Immanuel.

When the Bible scriptures are there for all to read and you claim no one told Mary to call her baby Immanuel, you're a liar!

And given it is blasphemy of the holy spirit, when God was Jesus/Immanuel, and it was God's angel that informed Mary she was to call her pending child Immanuel, as was also in prophecy in Isaiah 7, you're a damned liar.


No Christian alive slanders the scripture and lies about its existence when it has existed since and even before the printing press was invented.

lol. Now you double down and claim I’ve said Matt 1 and Is 7 don’t exist! I referenced both. All I did is point out that they don’t say what you claim they say.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Have a good day. Repaint you thinner.

 

[dhh712]

I'll just stop trying to convince you, no sense, it's a exercise in futility. Happy trails.

Praise God. Finally someone else gets it.

And to definitively answer the question, there is no direct Biblical verse that states that Jesus had to be God in order to achieve salvation for sinners; it is an exercise in the kind of Biblical interpretation that Jesus is shown to have used in the Gospels.

However, it is abundantly clear (unless, of course you ignore the verses that those who deny Jesus' divinity ignore) that Jesus is God. Why he had to be God is not really that terribly important (unless you are one of those intellectual types who prefer to have all the loose ends tied up; but I already answer the question and that was promptly ignored. The same answer, and likely more support verses since I'm just going off memory--which mine isn't that great-- can be found in the Westminster Confessions of Faith. That book will tie up all the loose ends you can ever think of in the Bible).

The record of God's revelation to us can proclaim nothing else: that he is 100% God and 100% man. Those who deny the divinity of Jesus are ignoring a large part of the Bible. I do not stand in judgment of their eternal souls. That place only Jesus, as God's word reveals, can occupy. But, I will take no part in any fellowship with these sorely deluded people. They most certainly are not my brother or my sister in Jesus.

Of course. Only begotten even. Unique and only SON. That Son came from heaven and became a man in order to die.
Seeing He is the only unique natural born begotten Son of God, what does that make Jesuso if not God? Did God beget a reptile? A flower? An angel? A cow,? Of course not. So what did God beget if not God?

It is mystifying to me that they frequently do not deny that Jesus is the Son of God but that he is not God. I can't understand that. It is beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

[farouk]

Praise God. Finally someone else gets it.

And to definitively answer the question, there is no direct Biblical verse that states that Jesus had to be God in order to achieve salvation for sinners; it is an exercise in the kind of Biblical interpretation that Jesus is shown to have used in the Gospels.

However, it is abundantly clear (unless, of course you ignore the verses that those who deny Jesus' divinity ignore) that Jesus is God. Why he had to be God is not really that terribly important (unless you are one of those intellectual types who prefer to have all the loose ends tied up; but I already answer the question and that was promptly ignored. The same answer, and likely more support verses since I'm just going off memory--which mine isn't that great-- can be found in the Westminster Confessions of Faith. That book will tie up all the loose ends you can ever think of in the Bible).

The record of God's revelation to us can proclaim nothing else: that he is 100% God and 100% man. Those who deny the divinity of Jesus are ignoring a large part of the Bible. I do not stand in judgment of their eternal souls. That place only Jesus, as God's word reveals, can occupy. But, I will take no part in any fellowship with these sorely deluded people. They most certainly are not my brother or my sister in Jesus.



It is mystifying to me that they frequently do not deny that Jesus is the Son of God but that he is not God. I can't understand that. It is beyond my ability to comprehend.

@dhh712 I'm thinking of 2 Corinthians 5.15: "...God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

 

[Marvelloustime]

Oh let the glorious LORD be PRAISED and THANKED.

 

[dhh712]

May the Lord God Jesus be praised forever and ever more!

 

[dhh712]

@dhh712 I'm thinking of 2 Corinthians 5.15: "...God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

That is a very good one. I see how it can answer the question (though I feel the verse will be ignored by these people, just as every verse about the deity of Jesus is).

 

[Matthias]

The deity of Jesus is his God and Father.

 

[farouk]

That is a very good one. I see how it can answer the question (though I feel the verse will be ignored by these people, just as every verse about the deity of Jesus is).

@dhh712 Scripture is full of the Deity of Christ; and classic expressions of the faith reflect it also:

"God of God,
Light of light,
Lo, He abhors not the virgin's Womb,
Verily God, begotten, not created,
O come let us adore Him
Christ, the Lord!"

"Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled."

 

[Mr E]

Praise God. Finally someone else gets it.

And to definitively answer the question, there is no direct Biblical verse that states that Jesus had to be God in order to achieve salvation for sinners; it is an exercise in the kind of Biblical interpretation that Jesus is shown to have used in the Gospels.

However, it is abundantly clear (unless, of course you ignore the verses that those who deny Jesus' divinity ignore) that Jesus is God. Why he had to be God is not really that terribly important (unless you are one of those intellectual types who prefer to have all the loose ends tied up; but I already answer the question and that was promptly ignored. The same answer, and likely more support verses since I'm just going off memory--which mine isn't that great-- can be found in the Westminster Confessions of Faith. That book will tie up all the loose ends you can ever think of in the Bible).

The record of God's revelation to us can proclaim nothing else: that he is 100% God and 100% man. Those who deny the divinity of Jesus are ignoring a large part of the Bible. I do not stand in judgment of their eternal souls. That place only Jesus, as God's word reveals, can occupy. But, I will take no part in any fellowship with these sorely deluded people. They most certainly are not my brother or my sister in Jesus.



It is mystifying to me that they frequently do not deny that Jesus is the Son of God but that he is not God. I can't understand that. It is beyond my ability to comprehend.

That may well be an admission on your part, but your inability to understand or comprehend is no reflection on the ability of others to understand or comprehend things you say you do not.

Let’s tackle the 100% claim. God is God. Man is man. God is not man and man is not God.
God is spirit, man is flesh.

Only by changing the definitions of this above can you insert a warped understanding where one can then insist that both are 100% true, but we see it often these days.

It’s the theological equivalent of insisting that a man can also be a woman. Born with all the parts that make you male, they claim to be also female, or female by declaration apart from biology. It becomes a world when men then ‘menstruate’ and can become pregnant not by some miraculous method, but by simply changing the definition of what man, or woman means.

Don’t do that with God and man.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Christians, and that must be reiterated due to the contrary element that has entered our community , know Jesus was Immanuel, ''God with us'', because only God can forgive sins.

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us"(Matthew 1:23).


Acts 4
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 4 - English Standard Version
11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Ephesians 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Fair Use for education purposes

Why Was Jesus Called Immanuel? (God with Us)

In Matthew's gospel Jesus is called Immanuel.

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us"(Matthew 1:23).

This is not a personal name. In Isaiah 7:14 it is seen as fulfilled, not in the naming of Jesus, but in the whole account of His origin and naming. It is not that Jesus ever bore the name Immanuel but that it indicates His role, bringing God's presence to man.

Matthew now explains to his readers what this phrase means. It is actually a transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek-making a new Greek word from the sound of the Hebrew phrase "God is with us."

God Is With Us Because Of Jesus

This is a statement, not a prayer. The meaning is explained to Matthew's readers. Matthew's use of this term may be understood in one of two ways.

1. The phrase "God is with us" describes the nature of Jesus. He is God who has become a human.
2. Matthew wanted to show that the virgin conception was not something new, but that it had been predicted by the prophet Isaiah. God is now with the people to save them as the prophets have predicted.
   

Therefore "God is with us" would not so much describe the exact nature of Jesus, but rather that God has been gracious to His people by sending His Messiah.

Summary

When the conception of Jesus was announced to Joseph the angel told him that a son would be born who would be called Immanuel - God with us. The phrase may be emphasizing the truth of the gospel that God became a human being in Jesus Christ. It is also possible that Matthew is emphasizing that God was faithful to His promises in sending the Messiah to His people the Jews.