What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Matthias]

What detriment, if any, does it produce “to make Jesus God“?

 

[Peterlag]

.
To Stump The Bible Thumpers


Can God die?

Can God forget?

Can God tell a lie?

Can God sin?

Can God create a rock that He cannot lift?

Can God create a light so bright that He cannot look at it?

Can God create a darkness so inky that He cannot find His way in it?

Is anything too hard for God?

Are all things possible with God?
_

1.) No
2.) No
3.) No
4.) No
5.) No
6.) No
7.) No
8.) No
9.) No. He cannot lie. See # 3

 

[Matthias]

What detriment, if any, does it produce “to make Jesus God“?

From my perspective: None, as long as we remain within the constraints of Jewish monotheism. Once we venture outside of that sphere of influence - going into the sphere and influence of Greek philosophy - we change the identity of the one God.

 

[BarneyFife]

I can't get anyone to answer this honest question. All I get back is because the Bible says so. But there must be a reason for it. What is it? Here I will give you a reason why he had to be a man.

Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

Now it's your turn. Anyone?

.
.
Is this the criteria by which we determine orthodoxy:

"What benefit does it produce?"

-or-

"What reason can be given?"

Must a man be able to explain everything for which he believes there must be a reason?

Does God not hold any knowledge in reserve only to Himself?

I could just as easily ask:

"What if Christ simply is the Sovereign of the universe and prefers to be deemed as such?"

-or-

"What if he had to be One Who possesses life unborrowed in order to qualify as Redeemer of those who do not?"

And, by quoting Scripture to advance your "man only" theory, aren't you doing exactly that with which you charge its opposers:

"Because the Bible says so?"


.
.

 

[BarneyFife]

I don’t think anyone is disputing the Diety of “Christ”

.
.
You'd be sorely mistaken there, I'm afraid.
.
.

- a term or title that refers specifically to the spiritual anointing that scripture informs us descended from heaven (like a dove) upon a man called Jesus who was physically born like others are physically born, of a mother and the labor of delivery into this world.

[/QUOTE]
.
.
Wow! That's quite a mouthful of speculative definition of the word "deity."
.
.
.
.

 

[Peterlag]

.
.
Is this the criteria by which we determine orthodoxy:

"What benefit does it produce?"

-or-

"What reason can be given?"

Must a man be able to explain everything for which he believes there must be a reason?

Does God not hold any knowledge in reserve only to Himself?

I could just as easily ask:

"What if Christ simply is the Sovereign of the universe and prefers to be deemed as such?"

-or-

"What if he had to be One Who possesses life unborrowed in order to qualify as Redeemer of those who do not?"

And, by quoting Scripture to advance your "man only" theory, aren't you doing exactly that with which you charge its opposers:

"Because the Bible says so?"


.
.

God does not do things for no reason. The fly either has a purpose of God likes flies. But the fly is here for a reason. There has to be a reason why God would make such a big deal about this Jesus who came as a god-man. For what reason? Even the devils asked him "why have you come".

 

[Wrangler]

What detriment, if any, does it produce “to make Jesus God“?

Besides violating the 1C, If Jesus were God incarnate who merely took on the form of a man and only appeared to die, it has no theological significance at all, for God is all powerful and can do anything.

1 Timothy 2:5 (NLT) There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. Interestingly, the emphasis here is the distinction between 2 Beings - God, in his singular, unitarian nature (not 3-in-1) and the man who is leveraged for the purpose of reconciliation - to God. IF this verse emphasized the God Jesus, it would be quoted as proof of the trinity but with no rejection criteria, the emphasis on Jesus being a man is given no weight and dismissed via dualism. According to this verse, if Jesus were God, we would have no means to reconcile ourselves to God.

Therefore, theological importance of Jesus NOT being God cannot be over-stated! He is the fulcrum upon which the destiny of the world depends to satiate God’s divine standard of justice.

 

[Wrangler]

Is this the criteria by which we determine orthodoxy:

"What benefit does it produce?"

-or-

"What reason can be given?"

Must a man be able to explain everything for which he believes there must be a reason?

In the 150+ pages this thread has gone on, I think it's been brought up a number of times that the wording of the premise under discussion could have been more precise.

 

[Dropship]

If Jesus is God, he can't be the Son of God, it's simple logic...:)
Some people try to get round that by saying he was God AND the Son, and that's illogical too..:)

 

[Peterlag]

Besides violating the 1C, If Jesus were God incarnate who merely took on the form of a man and only appeared to die, it has no theological significance at all, for God is all powerful and can do anything.

1 Timothy 2:5 (NLT) There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. Interestingly, the emphasis here is the distinction between 2 Beings - God, in his singular, unitarian nature (not 3-in-1) and the man who is leveraged for the purpose of reconciliation - to God. IF this verse emphasized the God Jesus, it would be quoted as proof of the trinity but with no rejection criteria, the emphasis on Jesus being a man is given no weight and dismissed via dualism. According to this verse, if Jesus were God, we would have no means to reconcile ourselves to God.

Therefore, theological importance of Jesus NOT being God cannot be over-stated! He is the fulcrum upon which the destiny of the world depends to satiate God’s divine standard of justice.

The idea that someone could spit in God's face and then kill him is just so off the charts.

 

[RLT63]

The idea that someone could spit in God's face and then kill him is just so off the charts.

John 10:17-18

 

[jeffweeder]

I can't get anyone to answer this honest question. All I get back is because the Bible says so. But there must be a reason for it. What is it? Here I will give you a reason why he had to be a man.

Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

Now it's your turn. Anyone?

Yes, it states that a man must undo what the first Man ruined by introducing death into the equation. A legally born Man is what we needed to overcome the curse of Death. Adams sperm passes over this death curse to whoever is born, so we have a problem dont we.
There is one solution and one solution only. God had to become a man without the agency of fallen mans seed.
Mary consented and God himself was born a Man that never looked like sinning, taking the Keys of death away from the devil when he was murdered., Jesus gave up his life willingly for us...,nobody took it from him, he gave it up for you and me so we can have eternal life.
Hats off to the most brilliant of plans, the most extraordinary display of love imaginable

 

[Gospel Believer]

I can't get anyone to answer this honest question. All I get back is because the Bible says so. But there must be a reason for it. What is it? Here I will give you a reason why he had to be a man.

Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

Now it's your turn. Anyone?

There is a huge " benefit" in believing that Jesus was God ---- you are going to be damned if you DON'T !

 

[Matthias]

Yes, it states that a man must undo what the first Man ruined by introducing death into the equation. A legally born Man is what we needed to overcome the curse of Death. Adams sperm passes over this death curse to whoever is born, so we have a problem dont we.
There is one solution and one solution only. God had to become a man without the agency of fallen mans seed.
Mary consented and God himself was born a Man that never looked like sinning, taking the Keys of death away from the devil when he was murdered., Jesus gave up his life willingly for us...,nobody took it from him, he gave it up for you and me so we can have eternal life.
Hats off to the most brilliant of plans, the most extraordinary display of love imaginable

God had to become his creation?

 

[Matthias]

The idea that someone could spit in God's face and then kill him is just so off the charts.

Most trinitarians will say, when asked, that God didn’t die.

Someone killed God (i.e. Jesus) but God didn’t die.

Off the charts? What charts? Who’s charts? Not off the trinitarian charts.

 

[Matthias]

There is a huge " benefit" in believing that Jesus was God ---- you are going to be damned if you DON'T !

There is a huge “benefit“ in believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

Those who don’t will have their place in the second resurrection.

 

[Matthias]

If Jesus is God, he can't be the Son of God, it's simple logic...:)
Some people try to get round that by saying he was God AND the Son, and that's illogical too..:)

View attachment 27000

In Jewish monotheism, the Son of God is God and yet is not God.

The Son of God is the new Moses.

 

[Matthias]

God does not do things for no reason. The fly either has a purpose of God likes flies. But the fly is here for a reason. There has to be a reason why God would make such a big deal about this Jesus who came as a god-man. For what reason? Even the devils asked him "why have you come".

“God-man” (Gk. theanthropos). No one in scripture - and, therefore, absolutely not God himself - ever refers to Jesus as “a god-man”.

Why then does it even occur in our vocabulary? What is it’s origin? It’s origin is Origen.

 

[Aunty Jane]

What detriment, if any, does it produce “to make Jesus God“?

Great question! The detriment is in presenting Yahweh to the world as something he is NOT, never was, and could never be....a mere mortal like his first human creation. Both impossible....and completely unnecessary!

As an immortal, God cannot die, therefore saying that only his flesh died, is not in line with Jesus giving his life in exchange for ours. (God's law required equivalency...."an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life".)
If Jesus continued to live after he was executed, then he never really died in the same way that Adam did. If Christ did not die, the ransom is not paid, and we are still condemned in our sins.

Its not just making Jesus "God", but the holy spirit as well......the holy spirit is never called Yahweh in the scriptures either. Placing two other "gods" in the Father's place is a clear breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)

 

[Peterlag]

“God-man” (Gk. theanthropos). No one in scripture - and, therefore, absolutely not God himself - ever refers to Jesus as “a god-man”.

Why then does it even occur in our vocabulary? What is it’s origin? It’s origin is Origen.

It's Catholic