I am absolutely sure that (a) you have no doubts, and (b) you have no warrant for such naive and arrogant certainty.I trust you don't think I have any doubts about the historicity of Jesus.
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!
I am absolutely sure that (a) you have no doubts, and (b) you have no warrant for such naive and arrogant certainty.I trust you don't think I have any doubts about the historicity of Jesus.
I am absolutely sure that (a) you have no doubts, and (b) you have no warrant for such naive and arrogant certainty.
It's neither impressive nor accurate but, then again, the same might be said about your uncritical acceptance of scripture.Wow! Picking a fight! How impressive!
Of-course the poster will give their opinion. So? Did they say "we can only go on what Jesus said and nothing else" as you seem to be suggesting?
Not at all. I used to think as you do, and argue exactly as you do now. But eventually I realised it didn't make sense in an overall context. Personally it was the last thing I expected.
Mathew 1Is Jesus God in the flesh?
It's part of the OP, not the whole OP.
Don't be offended
but I don't see that you understand the context
especially given your response to my question about the book of John.
A name that Jesus equated with himself in John 8:58. I came to this view on my own btw.
Satan said "If you are the Son of God.." If the Father had to reveal it to Simon perhaps Satan didn't know either, but he would have at least had an idea that this might be the Son of God.
So what is the alternative? Are you saying that Jesus was an angel? Some kind of spirit-offspring of God? If the latter then Satan would still have a chance to indulge his ego.
"The Son of God" was used by Satan in a titular sense, denoting a station or rank or special authority.
God takes personal risks with his creation. When human sins made him grieve who protected him from the pain? No-one.
Who was Jesus? Why not make more of his type? Why Man? Still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I'll have to take that as a yes to my question. In which case if you quote Jesus words from John, but then dismiss what John himself said, then I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously.
Is it just John you have trouble with? What about the others? What about Luke?
In Luke 24:52 the disciples worship Jesus after he ascended to heaven.
What about Matthew? In Matthew 26:65 the priests felt Jesus words were blasphemous enough to have him killed.
What about Mark? In Mark 12:29 Jesus said there is only one God, yet in 14:62 agreed he was 'the Son of the Blessed One', something considered blasphemous by his captors, and rightly so in a monotheistic religion.
What about Acts? Most scholars believe Luke and Acts were written by the same person (see here) In Acts 9:15 Jesus says that Paul is to be his chosen instrument. Even if one of the books attributed to Paul are really so, then the diety of Jesus is a done deal.
Perhaps you could tell us who/what you think Jesus was before he became flesh and blood?
Good, because I am only here in friendship.Please believe me...I'm not.....It takes much more than a thread like this to offend me.
I agree it has been dealt with. Muffled did a fine job. I guess we'll have to disagree on the meaning of that verse.And again, 8:58 was dealt with some time back.
If you are going to quote Jesus words from John you need to demonstrate in a properly scholastic manner why Johns other words are not submissable otherwise I cannot take you seriously.What response was that? The time frame in which it was written or that it seemed like the author seemed to be inserting some of his own ideas in to the book?
By that measure then so is yours. What remains is the fact that Satan used the term Son of God when he knows there is only one God. And (sigh) I repeat again for anyone who missed it: In Matthew 16:17 The Father himself reveals that Jesus is the Son of God, thus this is no regular expression.This may be considered conjecture on your part.
Was it known that early on? Why Gods revelation to Simon?And as I think of this interaction I think Satan would not have addressed Yeshua as one of God's protected servants if it was to be known by the multitude (followers of Yeshua) that Yeshua was actually God in the flesh.
Right, so for you there is no context, you seem to want to take Jesus words as regularly as possible with left-brain logical analysis and no room for the bigger picture. I'll give you an idea of who Jesus was before he became human: see John 1:1,14. If you dismiss these verses without serious reason then I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously.I have no idea "what" kind of being (if you will) Yeshua was before coming here.
Being the 'only begotten Son of God' is a title that none of us can hold.Being a son of God's is a title we all can hold.
Wrong. Very wrong. The words come from the OT, not me: Gen 6:5,6.This is your assumption that God can be contained by and affected by his creation. If this is how you see it then that is your view.....
Your trouble probably stems from your apparant lack of a context. Jesus primary job was to die for the world.I'm having some trouble understanding the question. Why not send Yeshua, a perfect being, to show the people how they needed to be living?
That's like asking why didn't God make us sinless robots, and has what to do with the OP? So I ask again: why, if there was a pre-existing being capable of being human and not sinning then why not make more of them, why bother with man? The theology does not add up here.Why didn't God just make it all good?
What are you talking about? I responded clearly. I cannot take you seriously because you basically say that some of the scriptures can be trusted and not others, but this all falls back on your personal opinion. It would be good if you presented something a bit more solid. If the authors doctored the narrative how can you trust the Jesus-quotes? You are in a precarious position my friend.Look, that's on you. You can either respond to me or don't. I hold no knife to your side to get you to do anything. We can look upon the book of John and tell very clearly where he is quoting something or where he is interjecting his own view......unless the book as a whole was completely from his mind......I can't remember which is older than them all...(Matther or Mark)....It could be that one of them is the oldest and the others were just copies with a few suttle changes in order to personalize their version. I really don't know. If it is quoted as Yeshua saying it I don't have a problem with quoting it. I've also quoted what others in the book of Matt, Mark, luke and John said "about" Yeshua. The best you could point out is that I normally don't anything of the opinions Paul has to offer.
Were prophets worshipped by the Jews after ascending into heaven? Don't forget Matt 4:10. The disciples actions are extrordinary for people of their culture. Absolutely extrordinary.I don't see it as worship the way some christians do. It's ok with me if that is the way you see it. I see it as a sign of respect, homage....But again that's me.
I completely disagree. The charge was blasphemy. It was nothing else but. The priests understood, as the Father did when revealing things to Simon, that the annointed one was also the Son of God, obviously a special use of the term.They rendered their verdict after hearing him say he would be seated at the right hand of God........But notice.....he never claimed to be God....
So what? Are we to assume Luke was there when all of this supposedly took place with Paul? I don't think so. At best he can only write what he heard. He seems to confirm this at the beginning of the book of Luke. If Luke is the writer of Acts....so what....He wrote a "story"...a story to who?...... he wrote it to The-oph'ilus of what he himself heard from others who probably heard the stories from others.
Again, I don't have any beef with either of the books.
I agree it has been dealt with. Muffled did a fine job.
I guess we'll have to disagree on the meaning of that verse.
If you are going to quote Jesus words from John you need to demonstrate in a properly scholastic manner why Johns other words are not submissable otherwise I cannot take you seriously.
What remains is the fact that Satan used the term Son of God when he knows there is only one God.
And (sigh) I repeat again for anyone who missed it: In Matthew 16:17 The Father himself reveals that Jesus is the Son of God, thus this is no regular expression.
Was it known that early on?
Why Gods revelation to Simon?
I'll give you an idea of who Jesus was before he became human: see John 1:1,14. If you dismiss these verses without serious reason then I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously.
Being the 'only begotten Son of God' is a title that none of us can hold.
Let us not forget the monotheistic context yet again. We are talking about a singular God who made his oneness the centerpiece of his self-promotion for thousands of years.
That's like asking why didn't God make us sinless robots, and has what to do with the OP?
What are you talking about? I responded clearly. I cannot take you seriously because you basically say that some of the scriptures can be trusted and not others, but this all falls back on your personal opinion.
It would be good if you presented something a bit more solid. If the authors doctored the narrative how can you trust the Jesus-quotes? You are in a precarious position my friend.
As for Paul, well, you seem transfixed with 'Jesus-only-quotes' so I thought I would show you where Jesus himself said that Paul was his mouthpiece, and we all know that Paul equated God with Jesus.
Look, Dre, that's not serious scholarship. What evidence do you have to back up these claims? It's clearly just your opinion at work here. I can no longer take you seriously.What I said was we can clearly see from the way it was written that there are times when he (the writer of the book of John) is quoting something Yeshua said or when he clearly is rendering his interpertation.
He called him "THE" Son of God. If the title is used even by God the Father, and there is only one God, then there is no distinction.Ok...he called Yeshua a son of God.....No where in all of that does Satan show that Yeshua IS God. He clearly makes the distinction.
But only one begotten Son. See further on..No one, so far, is doubting Yeshua being a son of God's. Shucks, God has plenty of sons.
I understand and respect your position.It is my position that they knew he wasn't God.
That verse is even translated for us: "God with us". Heady stuff, after all, God is, well, God.In the same book (Matthew), the writer asserts in (1:23) the birth of Yeshua is the fulfilling of a prophecy Isaiah had where Isaiah said that the child that was born was called by the all mighty, Emmanuel
Wrong. He used the expression "the" son of God, as the Father did in Matt 16:17 and the priests did later. They never said 'a son of God'. They all understood there was something different and special about the propheised Messiah to come.So later in Matthew 4:6 Satan made no claim that Yeshua was God rather a son of God's whom He (God) had given Yeshua angels to protect him.
Was there another revelation to Simon in the gospels regarding the identity of Jesus that we haven't heard of?Is this the "revelation" you speak of?
So you agree with John that Jesus was the Word who was with God and was God and then dwelt among us? (John 1:1,14)Now how could I dismiss the authors views?
You are forgetting something: we are all begotten. Therefore according to Jesus we are not Sons of God, certainly not in the titular sense that the angels in Matthew, Satan, the Father, Simon-Peter and the Priests used it. They all said "THE" Son of God. Jesus was the only example of a born-from-woman Son of God, which means that every other kind of 'son-of-god' was subject to a DIFFERENT meaning altogether, including all of the begotten humans and miscellaneous angels who were called sons of God. A son is literally a flesh and bone body. Think about that. If Jesus was some kind of separate spirit-son before he came to earth in a human body why didn't we hear about God's 'son' earlier in the OT? We didn't because YHWH said that there were no other Gods, never were and never will be. (Is 43:10) The only begotten son therefore is God's presence in a flesh and blood body; no mere begotten human, no mere angel, but one worth more than all of us put together.Again, no doubt that Yeshua was a son of God's. He was the only one sent to earth in the fashion in which he came.....(born of a woman). None of the other sons of God came to earth this way and none of was given the power from God to do the things Yeshua did.
Speaking in his human role yes, he was well within the old laws by being modest. Yet he also asked to share the (un-sharable) glory he had with God before the world began, refering to his return to heaven. This is a good example for you of how Jesus was at once fully human (and acted it to the letter) and was also fully God. Otherwise, these two glory-statements would be a contradiction.Yet Yeshua said he sought not his own glory.
My question has everything to do with the OP. If we are trying to determine if Jesus was God in the flesh we need to establish motive and context and reason and capability and qualification. Again I ask: If there already existed a type of being who could be human without sinning then why bother with Man? Why not just make more Jesus-beings?But yet the structure of your question is like mine.....But you seem to expect that I seem to know what God knows. My question goes beyond yours and asks why didn't God just skip the theatrics and make it all good. Surely he's the all knowing and the sole controller......These questions are no less valid. But none of it has anything to do with the OP.....
You have not established what the personal opinions of the authors were. If you dismiss the narrative then how can you be sure their Jesus-quotes are accurate?Again, I said we can clearly see where the authors of the books/letters interject their beliefs or opinions when they wrote them. And as I said in the last post...the best you can accuse me of is not quoting Pauls opinions.
Saying that they put their own personal view into scripture is saying that they doctored them, where the definition of 'doctor' means to tamper with or alter, thus changing the original meaning.I certainly didn't say either of them "doctored" them. Luke is an example. He wrote the accounts of other people who were the eyewitnesses of particular events and he wrote them to Theopolis. What could he doctor? Shucks, it was his works to Theopolis...
Really? You don't know. Many scholars believe that Luke who wrote Luke-Acts was Paul's friend Luke from Col 4:14. And if it's such a problem why keep quoting from him? You seem to be continually contradicting yourself.Remember, Luke wasn't an eyewitness but received his information second, third maybe even fouth hand
I have already told you: Acts 9:15 "..This man is my chosen instrument.." You have quoted Jesus own words from the author of the book of Luke/Acts several times - will you now reject Jesus words?And where did Yeshua say this?
Look, Dre, that's not serious scholarship. What evidence do you have to back up these claims? It's clearly just your opinion at work here. I can no longer take you seriously.
He called him "THE" Son of God. If the title is used even by God the Father, and there is only one God, then there is no distinction.
But only one begotten Son. See further on..
That verse is even translated for us: "God with us". Heady stuff, after all, God is, well, God.
Wrong. He used the expression "the" son of God, as the Father did in Matt 16:17 and the priests did later. They never said 'a son of God'. They all understood there was something different and special about the propheised Messiah to come.
Was there another revelation to Simon in the gospels regarding the identity of Jesus that we haven't heard of?
So you agree with John that Jesus was the Word who was with God and was God and then dwelt among us? (John 1:1,14)
You are forgetting something: we are all begotten. Therefore according to Jesus we are not Sons of God, certainly not in the titular sense that the angels in Matthew, Satan, the Father, Simon-Peter and the Priests used it. They all said "THE" Son of God.
Jesus was the only example of a born-from-woman Son of God, which means that every other kind of 'son-of-god' was subject to a DIFFERENT meaning altogether, including all of the begotten humans and miscellaneous angels who were called sons of God.
A son is literally a flesh and bone body.
Speaking in his human role yes, he was well within the old laws by being modest. Yet he also asked to share the (un-sharable) glory he had with God before the world began, refering to his return to heaven. This is a good example for you of how Jesus was at once fully human (and acted it to the letter) and was also fully God. Otherwise, these two glory-statements would be a contradiction.
If we are trying to determine if Jesus was God in the flesh we need to establish motive and context and reason and capability and qualification.
Saying that they put their own personal view into scripture is saying that they doctored them, where the definition of 'doctor' means to tamper with or alter, thus changing the original meaning.
Really? You don't know.
Many scholars believe that Luke who wrote Luke-Acts was Paul's friend Luke from Col 4:14. And if it's such a problem why keep quoting from him? You seem to be continually contradicting yourself.
I have already told you: Acts 9:15 "..This man is my chosen instrument.." You have quoted Jesus own words from the author of the book of Luke/Acts several times - will you now reject Jesus words?
You are going around in circles. You quote from them when it suits you yet when it doesn't suddenly they are not good enough, wether it be injecting their own view or now they are not first-hand witnesses and so on. By your logic all of the scriptures must be dimissed. You should just state that and get itover with. Like I said I no longer take you seriously.So by your reasoning the deciples were witnesses of ALL that they wrote?
You were saying that the stories are personal opinion, and now second-hand accounts.I didn't say the stories weren't true...I'm saying they weren't eyewitnesses to all of the events of the life of Yeshua.
But only one begotten son.God has plenty of sons
That's plural.Genesis 6:2
"THE" sons of God....................
But not a begotten son.Luke 3:38
The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, "THE" son of God......
The other humans who were called sons of God on occassion were not begotten?Yeshua was "the only son" that was sent to earth by God in this manner (through a woman). There is no information in the OT to suggest that the other sons of God came to earth in this fashion.
First you quote it in your favour, now you dismiss it as church-modified. This is why I no longer take you seriously.Well I agree that it has been "translated" and complied together in a book (bible) for You. This is what the church did. I'm not saying they were wrong for doing it. That's just the result of their work. But the scroll of Luke and Acts were written to Theopolis. This is what Luke says.
God said it. And it was singular, titular, and had to be revealed - it was no ordinary use of the term. This is the concept you are missing.What was so special about it.
What's your interpretaion? Why is yours superior to the writer bringing you Jesus words? Explain with proof.Now, again, how could I dismiss the authors views? I simply don't agree with the intepertations that have come from the quotes.
Yes, in the language of the day, and especially in the context that Jesus emphasised: that he was flesh and blood over and over (son of Adam) and born of a woman.Are you sure about that????? There is no information given that the sons of God are flesh, bone and blood unless we are talking about Yeshua and Adam.
Fine. It would have been interesting to see how you got out of that one though.Then we shall agree to disagree here.
Jesus had an important human role to play. Perhaps if you tried to answer the glory-contradiction it would click for you.If Jesus commanded or demanded worship (prayer to him)..As God does in the OT then I need to know where.
You say it's ok to quote Jesus, then you say it's not ok to quote those who bring the quotes, except where it suits you.I never said they "doctored" anything. Look at your definition. In order to doctor something it has to already exist.
(The Gospels "are not to be taken literally" they are "writings suited to an occasion" or "combat writings". Their authors "are writing down the traditions of their own community concerning Jesus". (Father Kannengiesser).
How do you know his investigations aren't correct? You seem happy to quote him on occasion, so don't complain about him. Either that or stop quoting him.He wrote he was the investigator of those who were the eyewitnesses.
There is the expression 'we' used quite a bit in the book of Acts. Look it up. Maybe he was a witness to some things. At any rate, if you dismiss some of Luke's words, how do you know the one's you keep are accurate? You are in a precarious position. Most people would have refused to debate you any further with this kind of dance-around-point approach.Does he write that he was with Paul when he received his supposed vision or are we to assume he was there?
I could say similar things about all of the quotes you have put forth where the writer reports on events where he was most likely not present. You say the stories may be true, then you say they may not be, so your real position is "I don't know". It seems hardly worth the effort to entertain this any further.Again, this is written by Luke because some one told him this happened. How could he have accurately investigated what some one supposedly indepently heard in their mind what Yeshua supposedly said?
Mathew 1
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Exactly. I'm sure you'll disagree but this sounds to me like a pretty special version of "God with us" then for the prophecy to actually have to mention it at all.I must ask: "When exactly is God NOT with us?"
Regards,
Scott
Exactly. I'm sure you'll disagree but this sounds to me like a pretty special version of "God with us" then for the prophecy to actually have to mention it at all.
Thanks Scott. The Baha`i view is always refreshing in a splintered world.Jesus IS a special version of "God with Us". . . no disagreement at all. He was the Word of God made palpable to our touch, ears, sight, etc.
So was Moses, so was Muhammed. So was Abraham, so was Baha`u'llah. "God with Us" for ever and ever.
Regards,
Scott
Thanks Scott. The Baha`i view is always refreshing in a splintered world.
Do Baha`i folk believe that all of those guys you mention have their own personal human identity also, or is their identity 'god' so to speak? Thanks for any info.
Thank you Scott. Very enlightening.It's a complex reality. All of Them are indeed seperate people boron of different mothers in different placfes at different times.
Yet They are One Reality at the same time: Call Them all by the same name and your are not incorrect, call Them all by Their unique names are you are equally right.
They are each the Revealer of God's Word, each a page in the Book of God. A book never to be complete, because we are never to be "left alone".
Regards,
Scott
By your logic all of the scriptures must be dimissed. You should just state that and get itover with. Like I said I no longer take you seriously.
You were saying that the stories are personal opinion
and now second-hand accounts.
But only one begotten son.
That's plural.
But not a begotten son.
The other humans who were called sons of God on occassion were not begotten?
First you quote it in your favour, now you dismiss it as church-modified. This is why I no longer take you seriously.
Perhaps if you tried to answer the glory-contradiction it would click for you.
You say it's ok to quote Jesus, then you say it's not ok to quote those who bring the quotes, except where it suits you.
How do you know his investigations aren't correct?
You seem happy to quote him on occasion, so don't complain about him. Either that or stop quoting him.
There is the expression 'we' used quite a bit in the book of Acts. Look it up. Maybe he was a witness to some things.
if you dismiss some of Luke's words,
how do you know the one's you keep are accurate?
I could say similar things about all of the quotes you have put forth where the writer reports on events where he was most likely not present. You say the stories may be true, then you say they may not be
It seems hardly worth the effort to entertain this any further.