sooda
Veteran Member
Who?
Who knows.. but no matter who wrote it, its revolutionary.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who?
Head in the sand ostrich.....LOLLOLModern psychic sources??????????? LOLOL
Head in the sand ostrich.....LOLLOL
Nicely put. I’m copying it here on page two, so readers can have a second look-see.A historical reconstruction would be as follows:-
Jesus was an average person like everyone else. He became spiritually motivated to join an eschatological Jewish religious group headed by John the Baptist. He proved particularly talented as a preacher and miracle worker (a form of religious leadership still common in many parts of the world) and attracted followers. After John's imprisonment and death, he took over leadership of a splinter group that became a distinctive (though small) eschatological movement. Motivated by some spiritual or visionary experiences, he thought that God's new world order would arrive if he went to the Temple at Passover and proclaimed the end of the current order and beginning of the new. He caused disruption during the religious events of the day and was apprehended by the Romans. His proclamations about new world order did not go down well with both the Roman authorities and Jewish priests, and his contacts with John the Baptist made his activities look seditious.So he was crucified for treason. He died.
Some of his followers were severely shocked by the failure of Jesus's prophecies about a new world order, and this shock resulted in psychological experiences that convinced them that God has raised Jesus from the dead and in fact the eschatological events are actually unfolding. That gave them a reason to continue the movement onwards.
Most literate people know that is a familiar expression for one who wishes to remain oblivious to a greater reality.I have no idea what that is.. Do you know?
Jesus was probably propaganda ingeniously devised by the Romans to placate the Jews.
Jesus, to me, was probably a historical character, that is, was an actual person rather than a purely fictional one, who served as the central figure of a future religion, and whose words have been embellished to include various words and supernatural acts to suggest divinity..
Do you have evidence Jesus' words have been embellished?
Jesus, to me, was probably a historical character, that is, was an actual person rather than a purely fictional one, who served as the central figure of a future religion, and whose words have been embellished to include various words and supernatural acts to suggest divinity..
I believe that is pure fantasy.
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus created "all things." If "all things" is taken to mean the universe we have a huge problem. That problem is in verse 15.In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:
The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah
The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16
The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man (Philippians 2:5-7, etc.).
The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?
The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?
It's contested, but it's still credible and a viable possibility proposed by Scholar John Atwill.This is probably the worst Jesus take imaginable.
Can just imagine an undercover Roman legionary in a fancy dress Jewish costume with stick on curly sideburns.
"How's it going fellow Jews?
Hey did you hear about the Jesus chap? Apparently he's your, ahem, I mean our messiah. He doesn't meet any of your, ahem, I mean our expectations unless you create some really tenuous backstory. Even then he's a really terrible fit, but he is the genuine messiah.
Must be true, no fake messiah could be such a bad fit. Only the real messiah wouldn't feel the need to actually conform to what was expected in any shape of form. And no, it's definitely not reverse psychology either!
So anyway, now we can all be friends with the Romans. That's what Jesus wants. Hand over your swords, there's a good chap."
The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being?
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus created "all things." If "all things" is taken to mean the universe we have a huge problem. That problem is in verse 15.
Col 1:15,
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:First of all, Jesus is called the image of God, not God. Remember when the Pharisees tempted Jesus about paying taxes? Jesus asked for a coin then asked them whose "image" was on the coin. They correctly answered Caesar. Did Jesus or any or the Pharisees understand that to say that the image and Caesar were one and the same entity? Of course not! By definition an image of something is not actually that something.
But that's not the real problem with assuming the verse 16 says Jesus created the universe. The problem is in the second half of verse 15 where it says Jesus is, the firstborn of every creature. The word "created" in verse 16 and "creature" in verse 15 come from the same Greek word, ktisis. Of course in verse 15 it is a noun and in verse 16 a verb, but they are the same word.
So here is the problem. If Jesus created the universe how could he have been the firstborn of that creation? Did God create Himself? That's kind of an interesting proposition! Personally I don't believe God created Himself. That's absurd. I think it might be better to look to what the "all things" Jesus created actually refer.
First of all, a close look at verse 16 doesn't say Jesus created the earth. It says he created all things that are in the earth. Now, I understand that "in" is a pretty small word, but it has huge implications. I think that had God meant to say that Jesus created the earth, He would have not inspired Paul to insert that little word with huge implications into the verse.
Secondly, none of the things specifically said to have been created by Jesus are anything at all like the things God created in Genesis. Genesis makes no mention whatsoever of, "things that are visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers"
To infer that verse 16 refers to the original creation necessitates that one insert ideas into a verse that simply aren't there. One has to be predisposed to an extra-biblical idea to claim it is speaking of the original creation.
So what are the "all things" Jesus is said to have created? Perhaps context will help.
Col 1:18,
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.I believe that the "all things" Jesus created refer to the church of the body. Reading farther into chapter one, you can read about a "mystery" that God kept to Himself (v 27). The word "mystery" is better translated as "secret." A mystery may never be understood, but once a secret it revealed it can be understood. Using the word "mystery" was a bad choice on the part of the KJV translators. Read Ephesians to see that God revealed the secret to Paul. Prior to Him revealing it to Paul nobody knew and that includes Jesus himself.
It was vitally important that only God knew the secret. Why?
1Cor 2:8,
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.Wow! Had the devil known about this secret he would not have killed Jesus! What's going on here? Well, also within the context of Colossians 1:16, we have the following,
Col 1:27,
To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery (secret) among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:How amazing is that?!!! When Jesus was present on the earth there was exactly one Jesus with whom the devil had to deal. There was only one man who could do the things Jesus did, the miracles. But what happened when they killed Jesus? Well, he didn't stay dead. God raised him from the dead. Jesus conquered death and fulfilled the promise God made in Genesis 3:15, that the redeemer would crush the devil (bruise his head). Because of that it became available for the first time ever for anybody who confessed Jesus as Lord and believed God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) to be born again.
Among the many things the new birth did was to make Colossians 1:27 a reality. Wherever there is a born again believer there is Jesus! It's Christ in you, in me, in your pastor, etc. etc. Instead of just one Jesus to mess up the devil's work there a hundreds of millions of Jesus walking around all over the place. Jesus said that everything he did, we would also do and ever more. What a truth that is! He couldn't get people born again because it was not available until God raised him from the dead. But we can lead people into the new birth!
No wonder God had to keep it a secret until Jesus said, "it is finished." With those words the fate of the devil was sealed for eternity.
These are things that every Christian should know. Sadly, it is a rare Sunday that such a message goes forth from the pulpit. Instead they teach the tradition that Jesus is God which renders the entire story of redemption powerless.
Matt 15:6,
And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.It's high time for Christians to abandon tradition and to see for themselves if the things they've been taught are really in the scriptures.
Acts 17:11,
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.The Bereans didn't even believe everything Paul told them until they saw it for themselves. We need to do that today, more than ever. The truth of who Jesus is and who God is slaps us right in our faces. Jesus is called the "son of God" some 50 times but never once is he called "God the son." How can Christians be so blind as to not see the simple truth that a son can not be his own father? To say so requires some pretty fancy twisting of word meanings, concepts, and a complete abandonment of simple logic that God never intended. God is very well aware of what a father is and what a son is. He uses the words exactly the same way we use them. He does not try to trick us!
There are no verses that definitively say that Jesus is God. All ones usually given can be easily explained in a non-trinitarian way. One way fits with what a son is and what a father is and the other doesn't. I say let's make the few unclear verses agree with the many clear verses instead of the other way abound. God is not the author of confusion. He has given us a sane mind. We need to start using it!
God bless.
Jesus was Christ, born of the Holy Spirit, a Mesenger of God.
Christ is the first Messenger from God and Christ will be the last Messenger from God.
Jesus the human Messenger was crucified, Christ as promised returned. Muhammad, then the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the same Holy Spirit that was Christ in Jesus.
Regards Tony
Do any of the verses you could quote explain who the God of God is?Jesus is God incarnate, or God in the flesh. We can fill the page with numerous bible verses which show he is Jehovah. He bore the sins of mankind, was crucified, and on the 3rd day rose from the dead.
Do any of the verses you could quote explain who the God of God is?
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
Clearly Jesus had a God.
If Jesus is God, then God has a God.
I wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to explain that.
On the other hand, if Jesus was not God then it is easy to explain.
He was called the son of God about 50 times. Never do the scriptures declare him to be God the Son. Are we not also called sons of God? Absolutely.
1John 3:2,
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Then it makes perfect sense that he calls us his brothers.
Heb 2:11,
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
I'd never blaspheme by calling myself God's brother.
I don't know why any Christian would. I prefer to line up my thinking with:
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
That just absolutely flies in the face of a so-called God the Son also being God.
I hope you've noticed nothing I said requires a twisting of illogical words and phrases to prove my point as is required to prove a trinity.
Heck, the trinity requires the complete abandonment of the meaning of the words "father" and "son." If you just stick with the normal meaning of those words it is evident they can't both refer to the same individual.
This was a good and cogent and well argued post.Yes, and so do you. The gospels of Luke and Matthew, which are both older than Mark, contain material not found in Mark. As the figure below indicates, about a quarter of Luke and Matthew resemble one another but not Mark (dark blue "double tradition"). Apparently, between the gospels of Mark and those of Luke and Matthew, some source no called the Q-source, added material to the story being told, and Luke and Matthew were privy to it. This material included
Luke and Matthew also have material found in no other gospel sometimes referred to as the L- and M-sources, which might be the gospel writers themselves, or sources that influenced them.
It's pretty apparent that the tale was evolving in the early Christian years, especially the magical things, like the virgin birth, which is discussed in Luke and Matthew, but not Mark. That strongly indicates that the tale of Jesus was a work in progress, including his words.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that literal miracles occur, and it seems unlikely to me that Jesus would claim to have such powers, since he would be unable to demonstrate them, which would damage his credibility when he failed to perform them. My guess is that the magical stuff was added after death.
Of course, this second argument is predicated on the idea that there are no interventionalist gods involved in our lives, hearing prayer and answering, generating scripture, performing miracles, etc.. My argument supporting that claim is based on the principle of restricted choice, a term that comes from contract bridge which I've re-purposed to refer to the idea that if situation 1 can lead to result A or B, and situation 2 can only produce one of these outcomes - let's say result B - and result B is the one always found, that constitutes compelling evidence that situation 2 is the case.
So, for example, in a universe with a god (situation 1, or s!), we might (result A, or rA) or might not (result B, or rB) have evidence of that god, but in the case of a godless universe (situation 2, or sit2), we would not (only result B).
If we consider several dozen more of these types of observations, they're always B. Thus in a godless universe, we might or might not find regular, invariant laws, since a god can just will the planets to circle their stars without any need for laws, but a godless universe needs those laws to have sufficient order and stability for life and mind to arise in that universe.
In a universe with a god, we might or might not have scripture or other forms of communication that are definitely beyond what humanity could generate, but in a godless universe, any holy books will perforce be no better than what we expect human beings could have written, which is of course what we find.
In a universe with an intelligent designer. We might or might not find irreducible complexity in biological systems, but in a godless universe, we will not find it.
And so on.
Can you suggest a reason why if a god that exists who is omnipotent and omniscient, who claims to love us and want to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped by us, would imitate a non-existent god in every respect? I can't, but I can suggest a reason why here would be no evidence of this god - it either doesn't exist, or it is uninvolved in the workings of our universe like the deist god.
This is how we conclude that a coin is loaded after it comes up tails 500 times in a row. Here situation 1 is the fair coin, which, when flipped, can yield either of two outcomes, heads (rA) or tails (rB), but a coin weighted to come up tails every time will only give us rB
This is the method that is used to catch unsophisiticated tax cheats. If the taxpayer is honest (s1), any errors he makes will be equally likely to go against him (rA) as his way (rB), but with an unsophisiticated cheat (s2), the errors are all his way (rB). It will always (or usually if we allow for an honest mistake or two, or a little deception to facilitate plausible deniability down the road) be rB.
Isn't this also how we know that leprechauns don't exist (s2)? If they did (s1), we might run into their pots of gold or see one every once in a while (r1) or not (r2), but that never happens. It's always r2, or what we would expect the world to be like if they were mythical creatures. We have no other evidence against the existence leprechauns except that they leave no evidence, just like the interventionalist god.
Thus, if such a god does not exist, then Jesus didn't do the magical things attributed to him, and the choices are between Jesus saying those things about himself anyway, or others inventing mythology as occurs in every religion.
Yes, and I believe that the New Testament is part historical fact and part fantasy.
It's not surprising that we would come to such different "conclusions." We process information differently, you by faith, me by reason applied to evidence as you just saw.. We use evidence for different purposes.
I put conclusions in quotes because the faith-based thinker doesn't actually review evidence and draw conclusions. He begins with a faith-based premise such as that a particular god exist, and only then reviews evidence to massage it to support his premise by emphasizing whatever he thinks can be used to support his premise while downplaying or ignoring that which contradicts his faith-based belief.
Then, the evidence that remains is presented in argument form with the premise appearing as a conclusion, which of course it was not. Conclusions come at the end of a thought process, not before it. I call these pseudo-conclusions - premises presented as the result of a logical process applied to all of the relevant evidence rather than a premise simply believed by faith.
Different processes, different results. I'll leave you to decide which one begins with fantasy, and which yields valid, evidence-based results as we get from science.
The Bible is a library of books selected to be the canon for the Coptic church. Its not one book. One of the books in the Bible points out Jesus is not the Father. He's specifically never referred to as the Father.In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God
All things within the creation that is Christianity, yes. The physical creation pre-exists in all creation accounts, both in Genesis and in John's gospel; and the creation of Israel pre-exists the creation of Christianity. There are creations built upon creations, much like there are six days of creation in Genesis. Don't ignore it. Go with the flow.The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things
God can not sin. Man can sin. It is impossible to be able to sin and at the same not able to sin. God can not die. Man can die. It is impossible to be able to die and at the same time not able to die.As God incarnate, Jesus has a dual nature. He is 100% God and 100% man. All of mankind has one God, so here Jesus is speaking as a man.