Is Jesus Christ the True God?

[danieldemol]

Jesus told: love your enemy. This commandment has very positive effect, it translates as: "execute your enemy only if no other means can be applied. And only the court has decided. Do not execute your enemy without approval of the court." This commandment has saved from execution tremendous amount of lives. So, this is not mistake of Jesus.

For the sake of avoiding repetition I see as needless, I believe I have answered this post in the following thread;
List of Jesus's mistakes, please.
Kind regards

 

[1213]

Please, vote.

I don't think there is right choice, because Bible says:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

...the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

 

[Lekatt]

Jesus came to bring life and life more abundant. If you follow His teachings it will become apparent why He is revered. If you decide not to follow His teachings you will not know what Jesus was about.

 

[Colt]

Please, vote.

In my theology Jesus, aka Christ Michael, is a "Creator Son", there are many in an incomprehensibly large universe with Trillions of inhabited planets. He is Not the Univeral Father Absolute, rather as a divine being his is very much like his heavenly father. In that way to have seen Jesus was to see the Father.

Christ Michael came to earth to live the life of one of his own created beings that he might come a little closer to understanding us. He not only lived the human life while subject to the will of the Father for us, but for 10,000,000 other inhabited worlds that he created. "I have sheep not of this fold, I must bring them also." IMOP as a student of The Urantia Book

Regardless of how we may believe in Jesus the relatively anonymous life of Jesus of Nazareth left us with considerable speculation and conjecture! His followers went on to turn the Western world upside down.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is not that simple. The late psychologist Carl Jung developed a theory of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. In modern lingo, these would be like subroutines connected to the brain's operating system; apps. His thesis suggested that these archetypes were common to all humans, independent of culture, and therefore define humans as a species; human nature. These are connected to our human DNA and how the human brain's firmware is organized for needs of human consciousness.

In his day, most of psychology was connect to the ego, which makes us unique. Jungian Psychology was more about human nature which is the same for all.

To prove his thesis Jung studied collective human symbolism from the world's modern and ancient religions, alchemy, the arts, etc to see if he could find patterns of commonality over time and space. He also looked for cultures that never met to see if their mythology developed in parallel, even without contact. For example the Aborigine of Australia which are very ancient people; 50,000 years, also have a world flood mythology even though isolated from the West. This particular aspect of the research suggested the collective unconscious has a role in developing parallel religions even in isolation.

What Jung found was these archetype apps of the brain were common to all humans, all through recorded history. This suggested that the base foundations for all religions come from the same place; brain's operating system. These system have been superficially modified by the ego and the culture in which they evolve, to reflect parallel cultural needs. Norse and Greek gods had different names and clothing but the overall structure is similar. Each surface reflects the local needs.

The affect is similar to all automobiles having four wheels and a drive train, with cultures adjusting the body styles onto this common base. The various religions tend to be optimized to the secular needs of different cultures as well as to the archetypes. If you live where there is snow all the time, the four tires will be snow tires but still four tires. The question of which is the best, is more in the context of different cultural needs, since each system is optimized for two sets of needs; inner self and the ego/super ego.

For example, Atheism is a movement connected to Christianity. That contrary mind set is allowable, due to the forgiveness of sins. One cannot outwardly deny god in all religions, since some doctrines are not as flexible to blaspheme. Forgiveness of sins is also what helps make the West more creative since being a pioneer often places you in conflict with the status quo, but since this sin will be forgiven when all is done, it is more allowable.

When the US Constitution made provision for the freedom of religion; First Amendment, it was placing the archetypes of the collective unconscious first; common human nature. The world wide migration to the open lands of US, was about our collective human nature being able to work together in spite of the superficial differences of the world's religions. We all come from the same deeper source.

I don't quite agree with everything here, but thoughtful post! I certainly agree that the archetypes of religion play a huge role in our culture, and different symbols mean different things that make Christ being the only true God too simplistic.

I also see these archetypes as being supernormal stimuli meant to drive human accomplishment, and the Christ symbol is a very complex one. But then, I see the same complexity in the Greek God Pan.

From Saki's "Music on the Hill":

"The worship of Pan never has died out...Other newer gods have drawn aside his votaries from time to time, but he is the Nature-God to whom all must come back at last. He has been called the Father of all the Gods, but most of his children have been stillborn."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus was not and is not a god, imo.

So there goes your claim to be a Christian...

 

[muhammad_isa]

So there goes your claim to be a Christian...

..perhaps he is not a Roman Christian..
Why should it be Romans who define who can believe what about Jesus?

 

[DNB]

Please, vote.

How can Jesus be God: he was born of a woman, and died and buried around the age of 30-33?
Of course Jesus was not God, never was, and never will be - nor any human or creature can be God for that matter.

But, Jesus' God, the Father, is the one and only true God, the only divine Being in the entire universe.
So, yes, only the Judeao-Christian God, the Father, is the true God. All other gods are false.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

..perhaps he is not a Roman Christian..
Why should it be Romans who define who can believe what about Jesus?

He says he's Catholic. And it's not only Catholics who believe in the Trinity. Almost all Christians do, aside from some fringe groups.

 

[InChrist]

Jesus was not and is not a god, imo.

That’s right. Jesus is not a god. He is God, the Creator...

...For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 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 may have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:16-18

 

[metis]

So there goes your claim to be a Christian...

Nope. Jesus and the Holy Spirit were of God but not precisely God. For example, this is why Jesus mentioned that only "my Father" would know when the end of times would be, not he. Also, on the cross he prays to God, which would be nonsensical if he already was God.

And since when do you get off saying who's a real Christian and who is not?

 

[metis]

Why should it be Romans who define who can believe what about Jesus?

I'm not a "Roman".

 

[metis]

He says he's Catholic. And it's not only Catholics who believe in the Trinity. Almost all Christians do, aside from some fringe groups.

But the Trinitarian Doctrine needs to be known by its origins and context, which I explained in a previous post. What was used in its formulation was Aristotle's/Plato's concept of "essence":
es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character

 

[metis]

That’s right. Jesus is not a god. He is God, the Creator...

...For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 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 may have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:16-18

Yes, God through Jesus was and is the head of the Church.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not a "Roman".

That's probably why Roman Catholics attempt to "disown you"

 

[metis]

That's probably why Roman Catholics attempt to "disown you"

But the vast majority of them aren't "Roman" either.

 

[syo]

What? No. What are you thinking?

 

[metis]

What? No. What are you thinking?

Who is your question addressed to and which post?

 

[syo]

Who is your question addressed to and which post?

The poll.

 

[Muffled]

Please, vote.

I believe Jesus is God in the flesh.