• 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!

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
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.
Nicely put. I’m copying it here on page two, so readers can have a second look-see.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Who or what do I believe he was? A sage, yogi, enlightened soul. God as man, avatar, full incarnation? Not sure. God can do anything he needs or wants to, and he's done it before, so who am I to say yes or no.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
He remains the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He is the way, the truth and the life! IMHO :D
 
Jesus was probably propaganda ingeniously devised by the Romans to placate the Jews.

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."
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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?

Yes, and so do you. The gospels of Luke and Matthew, which are both older than Mark [Edit - I miswrote this. Mark is the oldest gospel], 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.


350px-Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels-en.svg.png

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.

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.

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.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-5-3_12-47-17.png
    upload_2019-5-3_12-47-17.png
    7.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
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)?
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.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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)?

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
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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."
It's contested, but it's still credible and a viable possibility proposed by Scholar John Atwill.

The Roman invention of Jesus answers a lot of the gaps in the Bible rather nicely and a very intriguing hypothesis.

Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims controversial Biblical scholar
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
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?

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.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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

The way Baha'u'llah explains it, with my current understanding is, that God the Most Great spirit, sent out the holy spirit which is the 'Cause' that is the Spirit of Christ and all creation comes from that 'Cause'.

It is this Spirit that is in all God's Messengers and we make the difference with names and the parts of the Messages suited to only to that age. Otherwise we are free to see it is the same One Sun that is giving life through the Holy Spirit.

To me this is what it is to be born again, that is to see the cause in God's Mesengers, no matter their Name, no matter the Message God gave them to give.

I see this is the promise of Christ.

Regards Tony
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
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?

John 20:17,

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.
1Pet 1:3,

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,
2Cor 11:31,

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Eph 1:3,

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.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Do any of the verses you could quote explain who the God of God is?

There is no "God of God". There is only one God.

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.​
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.
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,​
Same comment above.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.​
Same comment above
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:​
Same comment above.

Clearly Jesus had a God.

Of course he did. He was a man just like you and me.

If Jesus is God, then God has a God.

No. You're referring to the pre-incarnate Jesus. Jesus condescended or emptied himself to become man

6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 2 Philippians 2: 6-8​

Scripture tells us “He was in the form of God”. That’s a big, huge clue that one cannot overlook or skate past when performing your exegesis. There is NO ONE like God, and that include B’aal, Satan, Zeus and all the other wannabees:

Who among the gods is like you, LORD? Who is like you-- majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? Ezekial 15:11​

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? Psalm 89:6​

There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. Deuteronomy 33:26

"To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. Isaiah 40:25​

So no one is in the “form of God” because no one is like God except God. Mankind was made in God’s image, not in the form of God.

I need you to look at Isaiah 40:25 again. "...who is my equal?" The answer is NO ONE. So it is blasphemous to suggest anyone can be equal to God. Yet Philippians has us performing exactly that equation when it tell us Jesus did not count "equality with God a thing to be grasped" Not his non-equality with God, his equality with God! How on earth do you explain that? Are there now two Gods, both equal???

There is no equality with God unless you are in the "form of God" and there is no man, no angel, in the "form of God" because God is unique and not ubiquitous. No angel and no man can grasp at God, so any such effort is meaningless. In fact, it would be blasphemous for the writer to suggest that Jesus has the ability to "count' or "grasp" such a thing unless he was in fact God.

He emptied himself; that is "he took the form of man, being born in the likeness of men". He was obedient to the point of death. Jesus is our intercessor because he is both God and man. Not half God, not half man, and not 1/3 God or 1/3 man. He was fully each.

Since Christ retains his dual nature even though he condescends, your questions can be answered by asking this one first: Is Jesus speaking as a man, or is he speaking as God?

Lets continue:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 2 Philippians 2: 9-11​

Notice here that all of creation , including the heavens and the earth below, are bowing before Jesus, yet we are told that God does not share His glory with another:

"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols." Isaiah 42:8​

2 Philippians 2:6-11 and Isaiah 42:8 are tough verses for Unitarians to reconcile if Jesus is “just a nice guy” or worse…some other, secondary God or angel. But the verses are fairly easy to harmonize because Christ has a dual nature.

I wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to explain that.

See above.

On the other hand, if Jesus was not God then it is easy to explain.

Actually it makes it more difficult. Jesus could not have died for our sins if he were not God. No angel or nice guy can die and make atonement for the sins of all mankind. There is no Savior but God.

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.

That's because Jesus was in the order of God, not God in the order of the Son. There can be nothing in the order of God but God because no one is like God but God.

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.​
Mankind sinned. We are now "sons of God" through Christ's faithfulness, atonement and sacrifice, not in spite of it.

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,​
Yes it does!
I'd never blaspheme by calling myself God's brother.

Jesus died for our sins. That means Jesus is God, not us. He condescended to save us, and as I've already shown only God is our Savior. There is no Savior but God.No angel condescended, and no other God because there is no God but God.

Our Father is in the heavens because we are men. Jesus was a man and as a man his Father is in the heavens also. He doesn't have a different Father than the rest of us. That would be absurd. Jesus had to be 100% man in order to die for men. But in order to die (ransom) all men, and not just himself or Adam, he had to be God.

Remember, by the time Jesus died there were a lot more sins floating around mankind, a long litany that Adam never actually performed. Sin entered through Adam, but it spread through mankind. If Jesus had just died for Adam, as some Unitarians believe, these sins would be forever unresolved.

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.​
Great! I line up my thinking the same way. :)
That just absolutely flies in the face of a so-called God the Son also being God.

So to you, Jesus is some nice guy, a man who lived a nice life, got up on a cross and declared he was dying for everybody? If so, how does anyone born in sin do that? Or was he an angel that became man, lived a nice life, got up on a cross, and died for everyone? If so, where do I find an angel died for our sins? Or was he another God that died for our sins? If so, where do I find this other God who died for our sins and why do I now have two Gods? Or was he a junior god who was just like God? If so, why does scripture tell me there is no one like God, and how do you resolve it with this scripture:

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. Isaiah 40:25
That's the second shoe dropping @rrobs. Yes, there is no other God but God, but there is no other Savior but God our Savior, and there is no Savior APART from Him because He shares His glory with no one. See the verses quoted above.

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.

The only way I've seen anyone on this forum "disprove" the Trinity is by obfuscating, twisting, and bending the Trinity doctrine into something it doesn't say. I think I'll pass. :)

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.

The Trinity doesn't state the Father and Son are the same individual. You're confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism again. The two are definitely not the same.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.


350px-Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels-en.svg.png

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.
This was a good and cogent and well argued post. :thumbsup:
Mark is considered the earliest, and its quite heavy on miracles and exorcisms. So isn't it more rational to believe that the miracle activities go back to Jesus himself?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God
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.

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things
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.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
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.
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.

It is a pagan idea that someone can be a not man and God. That is exactly the same lie told Eve. He said she could become a god (Gen 3:5) and she fell for it. Same damnable lie dominating Christian doctrine today.

As yourself pointed out, Jesus did not fall for the same lie (Phil 2:6-8). By the way, had Phil 2:6 read, "who being god..." I'd say you might have something. But it says he was in the form of God. Every word in the scriptures is important. You are in effect dropping the words "in the form of." I do believe there is something in the book of Revelation about changing God's word. If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that Eve's answer to the devil omitted words that God told her. She also added words as well as changed words. That is pretty much what is required to promote the trinity.

There is no point in trying to explain the trinity. Even the staunchest trinitarian scholars readily admit it can not be explained.
 
Top