Jesus is not God....part 2

[Ben57]

Hi,
Because you are "getting irritated over the discution" I will not post anything else unless someone else wants to ask me something.

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I was getting irritated over the discussion, so I went and read through Jerome's commentaries. Talk about perspective. Especially his exchanges with Augustine (no, not part of the commentaries, really). As far as disagreements go we're keeping good company, and being far more civil about it.

[Mus Zibii]

No, I'm sorry. It wasn't you. It was just the discussion in general. I don't want to be the ass that offends you and makes you uncomfortable to post here. Although, since everyone who initiated the discussion took off, we might put it on hold.

As an act of contrition let me ask you to tell us about the JW stance on hell. I disagree with the orthodox doctrine of hell, too, so I won't be a pest about it.

[I, Brian]

Discussion can often be frustrating - but it is welcome to educate the viewer who is not taking part, but who silently reads instead.

[koov2023]

Let me state my point as clearly as I think I can. Jesus is God. Anyone that states differently from that fact can not be a Christian. Jesus himself said well he was on earth that he was God. In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus is asked by the high priests if He is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. Christ anwsers by saying I AM. Where have we heard that name before? Turn your Bible to Exodus 3:14. It says that God said to Moses, "I AM WHO i AM." Wow this is just what Christ said when he answerd the question. When Christ answerd the question of the high priest, he used the name for God, why did he do that, because he is God in human flesh. In Mark 14:63 it says the high priest tore his clothes, why did he tear his clothes, because Christ just told him who he was. Christ is the great I Am.
Now lets look at John 8:58, Christ says, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I AM. There again Christ uses the name of God, by using the name of God, Christ is telling us he is God.

If Christ is not God in the flesh, our religion is in vain. We are a people of no hope, for only a perfect Son of God who is God could save us from our sins. If Christ is not God, we have no chance of an eternity with him.

Jesus is the second part of the trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three and yet One. This thought is indescribable. I love this idea, for who wants to serve a God that they can understand. I feel much more secure by serving a God that is greater than I can comprehend. I encourage you to not throw out the idea of the Trinity just because you can't describe it.

matt

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, koov2023, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by koov2023

Jesus is God. Anyone that states differently from that fact can not be a Christian.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I do not think it is fair or wise to make such a blanket statement. It is quite possible to see Jesus as a very gifted and wise individual, a rabbi and prophet, who is decided human, and that person be considered a Christian.

[koov2023]

juantoo3, I appreciate your reply, however I must be in total disagreement with you. If you say that Christ is merely human and nothing else, you are saying that a normal man died on that cross at Calvary. If a normal human being died on the cross, he could not raise from the dead. If this is the case, those who believe in this idea are dead already. For there is no way a human can die for the sins of the world. Those who deny the diety of Christ, deny God himself. Those who deny God himself, will find themselves before the Great White Throne judgement, and will be found guilty and sent to their everlasting punishment in hell.

[Ben57]

Hello Koov2023

I was going to reply to your earlier comments as I feel this is a very important sibject to through out there for people he have disscussed. It is important for individuals who do not know much on this subject to get both sides of the story.Time failed me and to day i just checked in again and find myself having to make a comment

Originally Posted by koov2023

juantoo3, I appreciate your reply, however I must be in total disagreement with you. If you say that Christ is merely human and nothing else, you are saying that a normal man died on that cross at Calvary. If a normal human being died on the cross, he could not raise from the dead. If this is the case, those who believe in this idea are dead already. For there is no way a human can die for the sins of the world. Those who deny the diety of Christ, deny God himself. Those who deny God himself, will find themselves before the Great White Throne judgement, and will be found guilty and sent to their everlasting punishment in hell.

Personaly I beleive Jesu was a man and only man. However he was different from the rest of mankind in that he was perfect without sin. Th Bible speaks of him as the second Adam.

You say that no human can die for our sins and to a degree that is correct. No imperfect human could die for our sins but Jesus was perfect. He was a complete correspondace to Adam. All Gods ways are perfect and right, nothing more or nothing less would do. Jesus had to be a perfect replacement for Adam.

Adam was the first human created. Jesus was the first creature created the first born of all creation we are told in the Bible.

In Adams loins was a perfect human race but before he could reproduce any perfect offsrong he sinned... fell short of perfection... went his own way. In sinning he gave up the right to perfectc desendents.

In the loins of Jesus was a perct human race. By sacrificing his life he gave up the right to prodice perfect decendents.

In this way he re perchased mankind by giving up what Adam had lost a perfect life with a perfect human race as decendents. This gives the decendents of Adam the right to regain their perfect human status.

In all ways Jesus was the perfect corresponding rannsaom for Adam that only a perfect man could pay.

Those that say Jesus is not God are not denying God. They are accepting him for who he is the soverighn almighty of the universe with Jesus as our mediator between God and mankind.

Read through the earlier post on this subject and I will be glad to show what the Bible has to to say.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, koov2023!

Thank you for your reply!

Originally Posted by koov2023

juantoo3, I appreciate your reply, however I must be in total disagreement with you.

You are entitled to disagree. This world would be very boring if all agreed at all times.

If you say that Christ is merely human and nothing else, you are saying that a normal man died on that cross at Calvary.

I think it would be good to start with an example. Some years ago, I posed an answer very similar to yours, to one who suggested that Christ may not have died in the way Christians are taught. So I really do agree with you: without the resurrection, formal authoritarian "traditions of man" Christianity loses its foundation and reason for being.

What I am actually saying is that I don't know. There certainly is a possibility that God could have taken the time and made the effort to manifest in human form for a time. But if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and no other similar manifestations have come about, and especially in light of historical and political fact, there remains the distinct possibility that "Jesus as a manifestation of the Divine" is a deliberate construct to gain and maintain political power over the masses of uneducated peoples.

If a normal human being died on the cross, he could not raise from the dead. If this is the case, those who believe in this idea are dead already.

Oh? What of Moses? What of Elijah? What of Enoch? What of Melchizedek? The method of death has no bearing on resurrection. It is promised that all will resurrect, whether or not Jesus did. All will answer to God, regardless of the tradition or religion they follow.

For there is no way a human can die for the sins of the world.

Perhaps, but many have lived their lives to improve the lot of human suffering. Many wise and learned teachers have given wise counsel to their peoples. And this was ordained by God (see Romans chapter 2). God created all creatures, including all people, and placed them where He desired. And it was not only good, it was very good (see the 6th day creation in Genesis).

Those who deny the diety of Christ, deny God himself.

This is a quick and easy assumption, but it does not follow. This is the rationale Christians use to condemn any and all others. God doesn't condemn (at least not at this time), people do. Just like certain other religious factions use similar reasoning to justify their actions of killing others and letting God sort the heretics and infidels from the righteous.

Might I remind of the story of Paul? Of course, this was before he changed his name, it was still Saul at the time. He held the coats of those who stoned the martyr Steven to death, and looked on approvingly. Indeed, the reason he was on the road to Damascus, was to round up and persecute Christians, thinking he was doing God a service.

Hatred in any form is no service to God. Righteous indignation, perhaps. Hatred, no.

My point being, there are a great many who do not acknowledge the deity of Jesus, but do acknowledge and reverence God (in some ways surpassing Christians). Therefore, this statement is inaccurate, which makes it false.

Those who deny God himself, will find themselves before the Great White Throne judgement, and will be found guilty and sent to their everlasting punishment in hell.

I can generally agree with this, but it does not follow automatically from the previous statement. Many other cultures and traditions acknowledge God in one form or another. Perhaps Christians disagree with their methods, but provided one is wise enough to consider, it is seldom possible to disagree with their intent.

Even within Christianity there is a vast array of contrasting arguments over which faction is correct. Each one is correct, just ask them! (-this is sarchasm, jt3) There are factions of Christianity in the world today that still use ritual sacrifice of goats and sheep!

Many many religious traditions acknowledge and worship God, without Jesus (as Christ or otherwise). This is part and parcel of how God created this world we humans inhabit.

Oh, before I go, another real eye-opener for me, was looking into the history of the Catholic church. When one looks at all of the shenanigans that went on in the name of "God" for the sake of and exercise of political power, things get a little more murky, and interpretations of Bible manuscripts by authoritarian tradition becomes a bit shaky. It is really easy to see some of the wide latitude of interpretation the Catholic church took in bringing Christianity to the forefront as a religious and political entity.

Ultimately, none of this has cleared up the position that the resurrection holds in the formulation and foundation of Christianity, in my eyes. But it does show that fallible humans have tampered with and adjusted the story to their own ends and purposes for almost two thousand years now. That Jesus may have been a human, an extra-ordinary human no doubt like Moses or Elijah, and not a deliberate manifestation of God in flesh, remains in my mind a distinct possiblity. One I prefer in contrast to another teaching that I believe is greatly misused and confused among its adherents:

The teaching that God is in all, and can be magnified or elevated in some way to effectively make that individual on a par with God. This, I think, is the greater mistaken belief. This thinking is daring to believe we can create "God" in our own image.

I adjure you not to take my word alone in these matters. By all means, I encourage you to look into these things on your own. Put another way, prove me wrong, please!

Of course, as Solomon said, knowledge is a heavy burden. If knowledge is too great a burden to bear, perhaps unquestioned blind faith is better than no faith at all. In no way do I wish to destroy anybody's faith. It is better to pursue truth within the boundaries of faith as guidelines, than to obliterate the guidelines and try to distinguish truth without a blueprint.

Thank you again for your post, and for the opportunity to express this. Your point is a crucial one to the Christian belief system in my estimation. I merely see a distinction between blind acceptance of authoritarian doctrine, and scholarly discovery of factual truth related directly to the events considered. That study, whether traditional or self-guided, must be conducted in earnest prayer.

I hope this helps.

In love and kindness, juantoo3

[Phatboy]

Well, If I take a glass and fill it with water from Lake Onterio, we could say that both the glass and the Lake contain the same water. If God is Spirit, and Jesus is full of Gods Spirit--unlike any other mere human--I would certainly not see Michael, the first created being! I would see the very character of God in human form to spread the Truth. Thats just me and a bunch of other Christians...you guys see it different, but why do you think that the JW text is so darn accurate? There ARE a few documents that dispute this, but I would imagine that you are told to avoid such "spurious" documents anyhow....Comments? BTW I am just stirring the soup...I have no intention of winning this debate!

[Ben57]

G'day Phatboy,

Originally Posted by Phatboy

but why do you think that the JW text is so darn accurate?

What JW text are you refering to?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Phatboy! Welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Phatboy

Well, If I take a glass and fill it with water from Lake Onterio, we could say that both the glass and the Lake contain the same water. If God is Spirit, and Jesus is full of Gods Spirit--unlike any other mere human--I would certainly not see Michael, the first created being! I would see the very character of God in human form to spread the Truth. Thats just me and a bunch of other Christians...you guys see it different, but why do you think that the JW text is so darn accurate? There ARE a few documents that dispute this, but I would imagine that you are told to avoid such "spurious" documents anyhow....Comments? BTW I am just stirring the soup...I have no intention of winning this debate!

FWIW, I am not JW. I am independent. I understand the dogma that is taught, but I have also looked into the context of the times. History, religion, politics, culture, etc.

I suppose one can accept without question. That's alright.

I do not accept anything without question. Since the Word was not handed to me directly through any kind of Divine intervention, I have to take what men say about it with a grain of salt.

Just to be clear, I also question the sources I have looked into concerning the politics and culture of the times as well.

If things don't add up, something isn't quite right. This is true in everything in life, and no different when considering religion. Or at least, that's how I see things.

Thomas wasn't condemned for his disbelief.

[spiritman51]

This is a very interesting topic. As a liberal somewhat Gnostic Christian, I believe that Jesus was a fully engaged human being who was motivated at the highest level by love. It seems to me that a lot of people talk about Jesus and his "God-head". I'm not sure if I really understand what the word God implies. Fewer people quote what Jesus taught. Just Imagine a world where the "Beatitudes" were on Courtroom walls instead of the Ten Commandments. Finally, I think it is the rare person who can do what Jesus expected of his disciples.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It is quite possible to see Jesus as a very gifted and wise individual, a rabbi and prophet, who is decided human, and that person be considered a Christian.

Well that depends on what you mean by "Christian." If you mean that being a Christian means you believe that there was such a person as Jesus, then what you've said is true. But even Satan himself knows that there was such a person as Jesus (and shudders).

But if being a Christian means more than simply believing in the existence of Jesus, then you must be incorrect. I have met several gifted and wise individuals in my lifetime, but there is not a single one who I would drop everything to follow should they ask me to. Given the choice to call them liars or die, I would choose to call them liars. I certainly wouldn't pray to them when I feel most helpless.

The first use of the name "Christian," to the best of my understanding, was as a derrogatory label. I don't think one can consider themselves a Christian unless they are willing to keep Jesus' testimony to the point of abuse, and I don't think anyone would be willing to take such abuse unless they understand that Jesus was more than a human being.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marsh!

Haven't heard from you in a while. Probably because I've been involved with another thread. Thank you for your post, it's always good to hear from you!

Originally Posted by Marsh

But if being a Christian means more than simply believing in the existence of Jesus, then you must be incorrect. I have met several gifted and wise individuals in my lifetime, but there is not a single one who I would drop everything to follow should they ask me to. Given the choice to call them liars or die, I would choose to call them liars. I certainly wouldn't pray to them when I feel most helpless.

Exactly.

If is such a little word, that can convey a lot more meaning than two simple letters usually do.

It is not difficult to look around this site and see the different connections between older pagan mythologies and the super-natural attributes tagged onto the one we now call Christ. I just got done looking into a Humanities book, and there is no Christian art in existence dipicting the passion and ressurrection of Christ until the fourth century AD. Other elements of Jesus' life are depicted frequently, including the miracles, prior to the time of the legalization and formal authorization and politicization of the church. But not the passion...

The first use of the name "Christian," to the best of my understanding, was as a derrogatory label. I don't think one can consider themselves a Christian unless they are willing to keep Jesus' testimony to the point of abuse, and I don't think anyone would be willing to take such abuse unless they understand that Jesus was more than a human being.

Indeed. So what better way to turn around a derogatory label than to create a super-hero, in the pagan mini-god hero worship sense, as was often done with other humans (like the emperors). Like Zeus, Iesus, Jesus.

I don't want to spend a great deal of time rehashing old material. But the simple answer is that the newly legalized and politicized Church had to develop a way of creating an institution that would have appeal to even non-Christians. This took place at the Council of Nicea under the rule of Constantine. Look into the Arian controversy that took place at that time. Athanasius' opinions won out, and became doctrinal for the newly formed church. Arius, who as I recall, viewed Jesus as a wise teacher, was effectively excommunicated and exiled.

After a brief lapse under Julian apostate, under Theodosius I Christianity was made the only legal religion in the Empire. Pagans were Christianized in wholesale lots. This was not sincere conversion, it was political conversion. One day the people were pagan, the next day they were Christian, with as little inconvenience as politically possible. This also helps explain why pagan symbols and holidays (instead of Biblical Holy Days!) were adopted and adapted for use in Christianity; such as the cross, Christmas, Easter, the eucharist and all of its peculiar symbology, Sunday worship, etc., etc., etc...

But even Satan himself knows that there was such a person as Jesus (and shudders).

You have hit upon a favorite passage of mine, but a little skewed. If I may be allowed,

"Thou believest that there is one God; Thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." -James 2:19, KJV

I don't recall anywhere in James mentioning directly Jesus as God. And James is (was) Jesus' brother, raised in the same household. (The same James for whom the recent ossuary was supposed to have belonged). He was also head honcho over the Jerusalem congregation prior to the Roman sack of the city and destruction of the Temple. The same James is said to have been murdered by being thrown from the roof of that same Temple. And he saw no need to mention Jesus, his own brother, as God. Hmmm.

I also find it interesting how many Christians completely ignore, or are even unaware of, the book of James. Or at best, misquote it out of context. Of course, James' doctrine was at odds with the doctrine of Paul, so in my mind it is really no small wonder.

I mean no offense to anyone here. I am simply supporting my previous comments.

[juantoo3]

P.S. I would like to add, that all of this in no way detracts from the wisdom in Jesus' teachings. To live one's life in accord with those values he taught would seem in my mind to live the ultimate Jewish life, free of the unnecessary legalisms that had crept into that faith. Jesus was, afterall, a Jew, who was born to a Jewish mother, raised in a Jewish household, was taught and did teach Jewish law, from the Jewish books, and his ministry was to the Jews.

My jury is still out on Paul, but it seems to me Paul bent the rules a bit in order to make things work for non-Jews. This is not a bad thing of itself, but I think the powers that were to be a couple of hundred years later took this as a liberty to bend things even more.

And frankly, using the example of Paul as excuse, have continued bending Jesus' teachings for nearly 1700 years since. Until now, at this time, I seriously doubt any Christian denomination would even recognize Jesus if he walked into their Sunday service today. At best, they would boot him out.