• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus say he was God???

1robin

Christian/Baptist
But that's absolute rubbish, that's no evidence for the bible. It has no historical or scientific accuracy whatsoever.
That is not an argument. That is yelling through a keyboard. Why does every time I give someone from your side the benefit of the doubt for being sincere, backfire? I gave arguments, until you at least try and respond to them I have no use for your personal mantras. Do you have the credentials to dismiss one of the greatest legal minds in history?
 

ignition

Active Member
That is not an argument. That is yelling through a keyboard. Why does every time I give someone from your side the benefit of the doubt for being sincere, backfire? I gave arguments, until you at least try and respond to them I have no use for your personal mantras. Do you have the credentials to dismiss one of the greatest legal minds in history?
I know what I can dismiss though; the Bible. It has contradictions within it, it isn't even preserved properly so there are more than one editions, it is full of ambiguous and useless metaphors which Christians had to accept as metaphors only because it isn't consistent with science. Historically speaking it's a joke. What proof do you have that this is the word of God other than the word of "one of the greatest legal minds in history"? You expect me to believe in the Bible because that man says so? And that's your proof?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I know what I can dismiss though; the Bible. It has contradictions within it, it isn't even preserved properly so there are more than one editions, it is full of ambiguous and useless metaphors which Christians had to accept as metaphors only because it isn't consistent with science. Historically speaking it's a joke. What proof do you have that this is the word of God other than the word of "one of the greatest legal minds in history"? You expect me to believe in the Bible because that man says so? And that's your proof?
You proved that so well by not giving a single contradiction, textual variant, historically inaccuracy, or inconsistency with science. The Bible is even according to it's critics like Ehrman less than 5% error. That is greater than any work in ancient history of any kind by far (I mean far). The dead sea scrolls and even software you can use at home destroy textual arguments. I have debated at least a hundred supposed "contradictions" and as of yet have not seen one that is not based on Biblical ignorance of the one claiming it. Your welcome to try. I am not even aware of a metaphor argument and I certainly would be if it was commonly used. It is such a bad historical source that it is a primary archeological source even among secular scholars. This results from your ignorance not fact. Entire museums are full of artifacts from cultures once said by the Bible to exist and archeology to not. It's historical accuracy is legendary. Give me an actual example beyond mere rhetoric if not to much trouble. Since only I seem to be willing to give actual evidence or examples why not debate the prophecy of Tyre. It is one of the most contested by your side and if shown accurate has no other possibility than being divinely inspired?
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Come on man. You kind of need to open the Bible to evaluate the Bible. Try it sometime. The point is the evidence we have (all of it) justifies Christ's genealogy. You are making an argument from silence. Evidence? I am the only one of us to bother giving a genealogy at all.

Why would/how could I provide a different genealogy for someone I don't even believe was born in the first place? There are no sources outside of the Bible to confirm the genealogy of Jesus, Mary, or Joseph, and nothing concrete to suggest they were even real people.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Why would/how could I provide a different genealogy for someone I don't even believe was born in the first place? There are no sources outside of the Bible to confirm the genealogy of Jesus, Mary, or Joseph, and nothing concrete to suggest they were even real people.
There are over 40 authors outside the Bible from that time period that mention Christ. How much evidence is enough, in addition to the 40 authors of the Bible? You can say you reject the genealogies I gave. You can't say there is any reason for doing so other that preference. Hebrew genealogies are legendarily accurate. Their culture had entire classes of people devoted to accurately recording them and vast methods for verifying them.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
There are over 40 authors outside the Bible from that time period that mention Christ. How much evidence is enough, in addition to the 40 authors of the Bible? You can say you reject the genealogies I gave. You can't say there is any reason for doing so other that preference. Hebrew genealogies are legendarily accurate. Their culture had entire classes of people devoted to accurately recording them and vast methods for verifying them.
Correction: there are multiple authors who wrote about Jesus AFTER his supposed lifetime, and none of them mention him by name until after the completion of the Gospel of Mark (because nobody used the name Jesus/Yeshua/whatever the hell you want to call him until after the Gospel of Mark was written). Nobody before the author of Mark said a person named Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, existed. They all referred to a mythological figure ("Chrestus") praised by the earliest Christians. Nothing about him exists from the time period he was said to be alive, including a record of birth with which to trace a genealogy.
Hebrew genealogies of people proven to exist may be accurate; that doesn't mean somebody can't invent a genealogy for a fictional person...
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Correction: there are multiple authors who wrote about Jesus AFTER his supposed lifetime, and none of them mention him by name until after the completion of the Gospel of Mark (because nobody used the name Jesus/Yeshua/whatever the hell you want to call him until after the Gospel of Mark was written).
Do you think your points will become true by using profanity?
Did you not notice I said of the time. Meaning within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. They mention him by several names (Christos, Christ, Jesus, etc....). What does that have to do with anything?


Nobody before the author of Mark said a person named Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, existed. They all referred to a mythological figure ("Chrestus") praised by the earliest Christians. Nothing about him exists from the time period he was said to be alive, including a record of birth with which to trace a genealogy.
Hebrew genealogies of people proven to exist may be accurate; that doesn't mean somebody can't invent a genealogy for a fictional person...
Exactly how many records do you have a right to expect for a person born in a manger in a minor province of the ANE? No other person of the same status has even the smallest percentage of evidence of his existence. No other figure of any type is as textually attested as Christ. Lets label the mountains of evidence for Christ's existence (a fact conceded by the majority of NT scholars on either side) as X. Your standard seems to be you need X + 1, without any justification for it. Are supposing a faith exploded on the scene within a few years of nobody being crucified? And those is a position to know the facts better than anyone in history suffered a lifetime of persecution and death in many cases for faith in someone they knew never existed? This is absurd.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Do you think your points will become true by using profanity?
Profanity? What profanity did I use?
Did you not notice I said of the time. Meaning within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. They mention him by several names (Christos, Christ, Jesus, etc....). What does that have to do with anything?
What eyewitnesses?
Christ was a mythological figure before Jesus of Nazareth, the man, was ever even thought of.


Are supposing a faith exploded on the scene within a few years of nobody being crucified? And those is a position to know the facts better than anyone in history suffered a lifetime of persecution and death in many cases for faith in someone they knew never existed? This is absurd.

Yes.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Profanity? What profanity did I use?
I doesn't matter.

What eyewitnesses?
Christ was a mythological figure before Jesus of Nazareth, the man, was ever even thought of.
Are you just declaring reality into being? I see your omnipotent as well. This question is so absurd it does not justify a response.



I see logic is out to lunch for your views. When you actually give an argument I will bother with a response. As for now me, 2 billion people, and most of the NT scholars on either side will have faith based in logic. Do you know how small the fringe that maintain Christ never existed has shrunk to these days?
 

captainbryce

Active Member
I already told you that "Midrash Interpretation" is not something I am considering. I don't need the midrash interpretation to be able to understand scripture. The minute we require this in order to interpret God's word is the moment it becomes useless to us.

John 14:26
But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true—it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

The Holy One, blessed be He, has always existed and continues to exist eternally outside of the perimeters of time, for He Himself created time ex nihilo.
The Holy ONE (in this particular case) is God himself, and to that, I fully agree. Where we disagree is that this includes Jesus.

GOD CREATED EVERYTHING OUT OF NOTHING [EX NIHILO]
I agree, but everything is created through his son, which means his son was created first, then everything else after.

NO HAMMER, NAILS, OR ANYTHING IN GENESIS. EX NIHILO!
No kidding, it's called an analogy. :rolleyes:
 

captainbryce

Active Member
Your “FIRSTBORN” interpretation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the “FIRST CREATION” of God does not exist in the bible. You used the Hebrew version but you disregard Genesis 1:1-2.
How have I "disregarded" Genesis 1:1-2 exactly? :confused:

Firstborn in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and pre-eminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born.
I believe it applies in both senses, and I don't think there is any scripture that contradicts my interpretation.

The five passages in the N.T. relating to the Lord Jesus Christ could be set forth chronologically thus:
The question isn't what COULD BE, it is what is actually true according to scripture.

“FIRSTBORN” is used occasionally of SUPERIORITY OF POSITION in the O.T.,; see Exodus 4:22, Deut. 21:16-17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of the “FIRSTBORN” to one born subsequently to the first child.

Among the Israelites the first-born son possessed special privileges. He succeeded his father as the head of the house and received as his share of the inheritance a double portion. Israel was the Lord's firstborn (Exod 4:22) and was thus entitled to special privileges, as compared with other peoples.
Yes. But we are talking about what "firstborn" means in the literal Greek context of the term, not what it meant in the Old Testament.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I forgot. Your opinions are the objective truth of the world. Forgive me... :rolleyes:
I wish you would address your responses to specific claims. If you will review you will find the last half dozen or so of your posts were 90% assertion. Mine while maybe wrong or maybe right were at least based on semblance of a foundation. So I was not even sure this post you made directed at me to begin with.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
I wish you would address your responses to specific claims. If you will review you will find the last half dozen or so of your posts were 90% assertion. Mine while maybe wrong or maybe right were at least based on semblance of a foundation. So I was not even sure this post you made directed at me to begin with.

Not really concerned with your wishes. I've just made the decision to stop debating anything with you entirely; I don't take any new insight away from it, and you don't ever even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong, no matter how shoddy your "evidence" is.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
There was a Jewish girl, Mary, who was married to Joseph. There was a holy ghost who came to Joseph and told him he couldn't have sex with her. He was sent by god to impregnate her and after she gave birth he could then have sex with his wife. Joseph agreed to this and Mary became pregnant. About nine months later they were traveling to Bethlehem and the inn where they stopped didn't have room so they stayed in the barn. The Holy Ghost knew that this was going to happen because he had gone to three wise men from afar and told them to get on their camels and get to the Inn on the 25th of December and to bring gifts for the new child that was going to be born there. They traveled for long times to arrive there. Looks like to me if the Holy Ghost knew he was to be born there he would have made reservations at the inn for Joseph and Mary. I mean this Holy Ghost was smart and empowered so it wouldn’t have been a big deal to do that. Anyhow, the child was born much in the same fashion as the Old Testament had referred to in several other instants and then nothing was heard of the child for about 30 years and he came forward and revealed himself as the son of God. Just like several others in the Old Testament he also was able to heal the sick, make wine from water, walk on water and do miracles like several different ones had done in the earlier ages. We really wouldn't have known anything about this if it hadn't been from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that came about several hundred years after he died. I think the real miracle was how they were able to discover this with no TV, Radio, Printing presses, computers, or anything other that word of mouth spread out over hundreds of years. A lot of their writings were in biblical babblings and hard to interpret so after hundreds of years, King James of England commissioned numerous scholars of his choosing to re-write the New Testament and make changes that could fit the times and be more understandable. This is the bible we now are ask to accept and the written word of God.

Welcome to RF.

I believe if you get to know God that you will find He likes to surprise people. Usually He tells people what they need to know and little else. Joseph and Mary didn't need to know they were taking a trip because it was not God's intention for the baby to be born inside an inn.

To paraphrase Paul, God didn't come into this world to throw his weight around and promote Himself as the biggest and best ****** on the street but chose to be humble in all His ways.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Stupidest thing I've ever heard... Well, it's up there, at least. There's plenty of opposition to the assertion that the Holocaust was justified. Does that mean it was?

I agree that evidence is the only true measure.

I do agree though that responses indicate that people have trouble assessing the evidence objectively. If one is opposed to Jesus being God then the evidence turns out to be insufficient.

I think that equates to those who say the holocaust never happened. Since that is what they wish to believe they simply dismiss all the evidence of the holocaust as invalid.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
PAGE 754-A 8-6-13
All we know for sure (through God's word) is that God existed before time existed, that Jesus was his firstborn of all creation, that time is part of the creation, and that all things were created through Jesus.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus (in essence, in spirit, or as a concept, but not yet as a physical being) and through him created everything else in the universe (matter, energy, space and time).
According to you, “sometime before the beginning, God created Jesus” and you base this conclusion on the premises or assumption on Colossians 1:15, or IOW, before Genesis 1:1 “God created Jesus” and “that time is part of the creation” or part of Genesis CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2 BUT WERE NOT WRITTEN IN GENESIS.

Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is not really the actual “BEGINNING” because, according to you, “sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus” and TIME STARTED before “THE BEGINNING” because “Jesus was his firstborn of all creation” OR IOW AGAIN, the Lord Jesus Christ was created by God and according to you “that time is part of the creation”

ALL THESE ARE YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASE ON THE PREMISES OR ASSUMPTION ON COLOSSIANS 1:15.

IOW, COLOSSIANS 1:15 SHOULD BE PART OF THE MISSING VERSE, ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE Lord Jesus Christ, BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2.

If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation. Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

AND YOU ACCUSED ME OF,
This is where the trinitarian view falls apart and begins to rely on contradictory extrapolations.

CONTRADICTORY EXTRAPOLATIONS!
 

dantech

Well-Known Member
If Jesus or more correctly Yeshua is God then how come He died. God cannot die like humans

One of the great questions regarding the Trinity...
Also, how is it a sacrifice for God to die for the sins of his people if he:
a)resurrected
b)is God and can't really die... Only a physical body would no longer have life on earth, but God certainly didn't die, did he? So how was that a sacrifice?
 
Top