Is Jesus Christ true man AND true God?

[Deeje]

You are confusing two doctrines. An 'eye for an eye', etc. is the action of revenge as payment for wrongdoing of man against man. Here there is no atonement or forgiveness.

Capital offenses required that the life of the perpetrator be forfeited as recompense for the crime. If a life was taken, the killers life was also taken, balancing the scales of justice.

That of a deity descending from heaven to earth to be crucified is atonement as payment for man's wrongdoing against God.

Where will I find that in scripture? Jesus is the divine son of God whose life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a Jewish virgin, hand picked by God to raise his son as a human child in a normal Jewish family. According to scripture, he had at least 6 siblings, and a father who taught him a trade. The method of Christ's death is neither here nor there...it was his death that would redeem Adam's children from the debt he left them.

But the problem with the entire scenario of the Crucifixion is that of God not only blaming his children for his flawed 'test', but in the silly notion of their 'sin' being indelibly transferred to all of Adam and Eve's progeny, and then the added silly notion of a divine being having to be crucified to pay for those sins. This is the working of fear and superstition, I am afraid.

It is entirely Biblical and in accordance with God's law.....a law so perfect that the Creator abides by it himself.

The test in the garden was not "silly" but a genuine method of testing respect and obedience to his only negative command. He gave his children free will with all the potential for disaster that it naturally invoked. The test was not difficult and caused them no hardship whatsoever. It should have been a piece of cake. But a more powerful rebel was waiting to take advantage of them. He wanted what no other creature could give him....worship.
As perfect creatures, made in the image of their Creator, there was no excuse for abusing their free will as if their Father would withhold something beneficial from them.They knew better and they had no reason to doubt his intentions or motives.

The death penalty was stated long before anyone touched that fruit.....they knew what death was because they had obviously witnessed animals die. The way the death penalty was implemented however, is not stated.....only that it would take place 'in the day of their eating'.
Like a fan unplugged from its power source, the humans began to degenerate that very day, gradually descending into aging, ill health and eventually death. What was passed onto Adam's children was the defect of sin. (an archery term meaning to "miss the mark".) All of Adam's children now "missed the mark" of physical, mental and spiritual perfection.
All they had to pass on was this faulty genetic inheritance, which always led to death. Jesus came as God's most trusted servant to offer his perfect life in exchange for the life Adam stole from them.

In Israel, if a man left a debt, his children could be sold to pay for it. But a benefactor could pay the debt and free the child. This is what Jesus did for the human race. It is all in accord with God's perfect law and the unselfish actions of someone who loves us very much. (John 3:16; Matthew 20:28)

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The answer lies in the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) was not a man, but the essence of man. Alan Watts explains:


"The dogma of the Incarnation insists that in Christ, God became man, not a man. That is to say, in Christ, there are two natures, but only one person. The person is divine - God the Son - but it is in hypostatic union with a complete human nature, though not with a human person. Thus the humanity of Christ is representative of all humanity, and by this means the gifts of the Incarnation are bestowed upon the whole race and not upon the historic Jesus alone*."

Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion, by Alan Watts, p. 131

Thanks for the quote. It's a good attempt at explaining it but I'm not sure it helps entirely. Watt says Christ is in "hypostatic union with a complete human nature, though not with a human person." which I feel only reinforces my confusion. Church doctrine says that humans are naturally inclined towards sin & evil which leads me back to my original question. Does this quote not imply that if Christ can have "a complete human nature" yet still remain perfect, that human nature is in some way incomplete?

 

[Windwalker]

Its a mystery that no human can understand. That's a good one and a good copout.

A cop out? I'd say it's accurate. Can you define the infinite? If you can, then it's not infinite because you put a boundary around it. Can your mind comprehend infinity? If you say it can, then you are not thinking of infinity. How is God by definition, being infinite, comprehensible by the human mind then, which of necessity thinks in bounded, dualistic terms? Explain your genius here?

 

[Windwalker]

Since the scriptures never put Christ and his Father on the same level, I believe that your own position is in error.

It certainly does in John 1:1 and elsewhere. I do not accept the NWT's tortured translation of "a god" nonsense.

The trinity is not a Bible based teaching

The Trinity is a formulation based up what is seen and read in the New Testament texts. The Bible never states it explicitly, but it never states which book are supposed to be in the Bible itself either, and yet you have no problem accepting the books you have which too are a product of church councils without an issue! Why such a double standard? Explain.

but was adopted well after the death of Christ and his apostles, by an apostate church in the 4th century.

As well as the canonization of the scripture which you today accept as "God's Word", yet you have no issue with that as a product of the "apostate church"? The reality is, the Trinitarian formulation existed long before the Nicean council. All that council did was decide on which of the many currently existing view they wished to standardize as the main teachings of a newly organized religious body. They didn't invent it or introduce it.

Why did it take almost 400 years to incorporate the belief that Jesus was God into church doctrine?

It didn't take that long. Your information is wrong. It existed early on with the first reference to it around 100 AD. But again, "incorporate" in what sense? You mean codified into doctrine? Then yes. A lot of things were codified at later dates as an organizational move. But "introduce" the teaching, theologies, beliefs, views, etc, oh heck no! They were there quite early on.

Because Jesus never taught it, yet it is the very foundation doctrine of Christendom.....Christendom was invented by the church.

Actually, I disagree with your opinion it is the very foundation of Christendom. Not sure why you have that view.

Jesus has never been there. (Matthew 7:21-23)

What in the world does this verse about people who are religious hypocrites have to do with the Trinitarian formulation? Why not just quote some other random verse and say it supports you against others. The Bible also says to not judge, yet you seem quite zealous to do that in referring to the whole of Christianity in the 4th century as "apostate".

Did Jesus teach the Trinitarian formulation? Of course not, but he did speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Later theologians simply took these expressions and made them into a formula, which later became accepted doctrine. Your guy Arius came up with a formula too, let's not forget here!

I have provided a scripturally based argument for my belief about the ransom, explaining why Jesus cannot be God incarnate.....what have you provided? (apart from insults)

When have I insulted you? Of course the Trinity is supported scripturally. They didn't just make it up out of thin air. You're doing nothing different than what they did, aside from poor scholarship on your part.

 

[godnotgod]

That is a complete contradiction of everything Christ taught. I have no interest in his ramblings....I have no interest in theology. It is not remotely connected to the teachings of Jesus. Churchianity is not Christianity.



You present these Church "Fathers" as if they were the authors of scripture.....they were not. We are to call no man "Father" on earth...remember? (Matthew 23:9) We are taught by the son of God all we need for salvation.

I accept the Bible...the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.....nothing written after the first century is of any real interest to me if it deviates from what Jesus taught. The history of the early church is a sad tale, leading to full apostasy, as Jesus and the apostles foretold.

I am not presenting them as 'authors of scripture' at all, but clearly as Church Fathers and others who had major influences on Christian theology. Athanasius was the author of the Trinitarian doctrine, quite important.

But if you are going to take the stance you do, then the 'teachings of Jesus and the apostles' are also highly suspect, as, for one, we cannot even attribute them to Jesus and the apostles. There is corruption and manipulation of the texts in who knows how many cases, as well as obscurity as to who wrote the Gospels. Then there are the many versions of the Bible. Which one is authentic? The Codex Sinaiticus, which is the primary text the Bible is based upon, was rescued by Tischendorf as it was about to be tossed into a furnace from a trash bin, and which is rife with corrections, erasures, and other manipulations of the text.* Too, we have the current controversy over whether the NT was written in Greek or Aramaic. Then we have the rejection of the Apocryphal scriptures by the Council of Trent and others....and on and on.. But the primary manipulation comes from Paul, who took 3 elements and synthesized them to launch what is now modern Christianity: first, Jewish history as backdrop to lend authenticity to the myth; second, the Gnostic idea of the Logos, or teacher descending from heaven to man, and thirdly, the idea of a dying and resurrecting god-man, taken from the mystery religions in which Paul was steeped in Tarsus during his upbringing.

Jesus, or rather Yeshua, was a Nazarene, a member of a Jewish mystical cult, whose teachings did not include what Paul interjected. If you want to believe in what Yeshua taught, you will have to learn how to extract his teachings from the corrupt NT, and the only way you can do that is to identify, via your own mystical experience, which passages are authentic and which are not.
This makes scripture secondary in importance to the living experience, as it is always a second-hand account anyway. If, as Yeshua said, 'the kingdom of God is within', then you should have no difficulty.

Essentially, the teachings of Yeshua were Eastern in origin, not Western or pagan, which were overwritten onto them. The mystical experience is based upon the breath as the life-force, not the blood, as put forth in blood sacrifice. This is the crucial difference between the original teachings and modern Christianity.

*Compare to the Aramaic Pe-shi-tta** Bible, with an accuracy of over 99.99...% from one copy to another.

**It's one word, but had to hyphenate to avoid censorship by REF, LOL.

 

[godnotgod]

Capital offenses required that the life of the perpetrator be forfeited as recompense for the crime. If a life was taken, the killers life was also taken, balancing the scales of justice.

This is revenge, and has nothing to do with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, in scripture, Jesus overturns that law:

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matt 38-39

Where will I find that in scripture? Jesus is the divine son of God whose life was transferred from heaven to the womb of a Jewish virgin, hand picked by God to raise his son as a human child in a normal Jewish family. According to scripture, he had at least 6 siblings, and a father who taught him a trade.

The method of Christ's death is neither here nor there...it was his death that would redeem Adam's children from the debt he left them.

You just answered your own question.

 

[godnotgod]

Why did it take almost 400 years to incorporate the belief that Jesus was God into church doctrine?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1King James Version (KJV)

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The religion that formed 400 years after the time of Jesus was influenced by Satan and teaches very little of what Jesus taught.

 

[Windwalker]

The religion that formed 400 years after the time of Jesus was influenced by Satan and teaches very little of what Jesus taught.

Which religion are you referring to that formed in the 5th Century? Who started it?

 

[godnotgod]

Thanks for the quote. It's a good attempt at explaining it but I'm not sure it helps entirely. Watt says Christ is in "hypostatic union with a complete human nature, though not with a human person." which I feel only reinforces my confusion. Church doctrine says that humans are naturally inclined towards sin & evil which leads me back to my original question. Does this quote not imply that if Christ can have "a complete human nature" yet still remain perfect, that human nature is in some way incomplete?

Watts is making the distinction between a human nature not caught in Identification and a human person lost in Identification, what we would refer to as 'self'.

A complete human nature would not have a sense of 'I' ness. When Yeshua said: 'Before Abraham was, I Am', he was not referring to himself in human Identification, but to his Being, outside of time and space, and therefore, outside of history.

As I understand it, Church doctrine teaches that man has a natural tendency toward sinfulness, what it terms a 'sinful nature'. Personally, I refute that, but is it also part of scriptural doctrine?

 

[Deeje]

It certainly does in John 1:1 and elsewhere. I do not accept the NWT's tortured translation of "a god" nonsense.

Translating that passage to infer that Jesus is Almighty God is where the real 'torture' is IMO.....

John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” The trinity is undone just 17 verses later.

John 1:14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.”
No man can behold the glory of God and live to tell the tale, (Exodus 33:17-20) so the glory of the son is a lesser glory, from a divine Father.

Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning the Word was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities. (Hebrews 1:3)

"Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.”

Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·himʹ; Greek, the·oiʹ, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law." (Reasoning from the Scriptures WTBTS)

The Trinity is a formulation based up what is seen and read in the New Testament texts. The Bible never states it explicitly, but it never states which book are supposed to be in the Bible itself either, and yet you have no problem accepting the books you have which too are a product of church councils without an issue! Why such a double standard? Explain.

The trinity is an adoption from paganism. Out of the three major Abrahamic faiths, only Christendom worships a triune god. Yet we see trinities right throughout pagan religions. (Google pagan trinities and see for yourself.)

The Jews did not have a 'three in one godhead' (Deuteronomy 6:4) and Jesus was born and raised as a Jew. He did not teach that he was God...EVER. Not one single statement from either the Father or the son that they shared godship or equality in any way.

At Acts 4:30 the apostles declared..."while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.” If Jesus is God, then he is a servant of himself.....and he prays to himself.

In Revelation 3:12 Jesus says..."He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name."

If Jesus is God, then even in heaven, he worships himself.

The holy spirit is never called "God'. It is God's spirit inasmuch as it emanates from him and he is a spirit, but it is not a separate "person".

As well as the canonization of the scripture which you today accept as "God's Word", yet you have no issue with that as a product of the "apostate church"?

God has used even his enemies to accomplish his will. I can assure you than not a word of scripture was written by a single member of Christendom's churches. I believe that the Bible is a product of God's holy spirit, not the product of men....especially not those men. It is God's word and he can direct its compilation and protect its integrity however he chooses....even from "the church" itself.

The reality is, the Trinitarian formulation existed long before the Nicean council. All that council did was decide on which of the many currently existing view they wished to standardize as the main teachings of a newly organized religious body. They didn't invent it or introduce it.

A little research will reveal that the trinity was not readily accepted by many in the church initially, but they were worn down over time, which is why it took over 300 years to make it official church doctrine...along with many other very unscriptural doctrines.

It didn't take that long. Your information is wrong. It existed early on with the first reference to it around 100 AD. But again, "incorporate" in what sense? You mean codified into doctrine? Then yes. A lot of things were codified at later dates as an organizational move. But "introduce" the teaching, theologies, beliefs, views, etc, oh heck no! They were there quite early on.

If you think that is true, I believe that you are greatly mistaken. An apostasy was foretold and it happened just as Jesus and his apostles said it would, whilst Christianity was still in its early stages of growth. Christendom does not represent Christianity in any way...and never has. God has commanded that his "people" "get out of " "Babylon the great" before God passes judgment on her. (Revelation 18:4-5) All false worship will be eliminated....permanently.

Actually, I disagree with your opinion it is the very foundation of Christendom. Not sure why you have that view.

I believe that the trinity has Christendom's adherents worshipping a god who does not exist....a false god.
To put any other deity in place of the Father is blasphemy...a breach of the very first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) That places them outside the ballpark to begin with as I see it. Everything they believe is based on that blasphemous lie. Didn't Jesus warn about bad foundations?

What in the world does this verse about people who are religious hypocrites have to do with the Trinitarian formulation? Why not just quote some other random verse and say it supports you against others. The Bible also says to not judge, yet you seem quite zealous to do that in referring to the whole of Christianity in the 4th century as "apostate".

It's the truth. Roman Catholicism was a fusion between Roman sun worship and a very weakened form of Christianity. At that time Constantine declared this fusion religion to be the only one to be practiced in Rome. The pagans got to keep their favorite beliefs and festivals under a very thin veneer of Christianity...a mere label to give Christians the impression that it was favored by God. Where do you think Christmas and Easter come from?

Matthew 7:21-23 is exactly what you describe..."religious hypocrites" whom Jesus says 'he never knew'. (emphasis on the word NEVER)
As a Jew, Jesus never celebrated his own birthday, ( a pagan custom associated with astrology. Deut 18:9-12) let alone make it a national holiday so that everyone else could party. It promotes everything the Bible condemns, with even pagans finding the customs very familiar and acceptable to themselves....over eating and heavy drinking. Ask the law enforcement officers how much they love Christmas.....? A time for drunkenness, domestic violence, immorality and greed. Lovely.

Did Jesus teach the Trinitarian formulation? Of course not, but he did speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Later theologians simply took these expressions and made them into a formula, which later became accepted doctrine. Your guy Arius came up with a formula too, let's not forget here!

Speaking of the "Father, son and holy spirit" is something we see throughout the scriptures, yet never in the "formulation" invented by the church. Understanding the vital role of each one is important....but never are they presented as a trinity.

Of course the Trinity is supported scripturally. They didn't just make it up out of thin air. You're doing nothing different than what they did, aside from poor scholarship on your part.

The trinity finds no support in the Bible at all unless you try to force it into ambiguous texts. If there is no clear and unequivocal statement by either God or his Christ, then all you have is suggestion....Do you understand the power of suggestion in the wrong hands? The world is in the wrong hands. (1 John 5:19)

And BTW...we are not Arians. We just reject the trinity because the Bible does not teach it. We reject anything that comes from sources outside of the scriptures.

 

[Windwalker]

You certainly have studied their fundamentalist handbooks! I'll give you that much. But puppeting their propaganda doesn't equal understanding much of anything about God. I'm well familiar with this junk theology and it fails to impress me. It's so, turn of the 20th century! Lots of other little "restored truth" movements from that time do the same sorts of thing, and it's all flip sides of the same dulled penny.

I pretty much mostly deal with a different currency, a different approach to truth and meaning. Hence why nothing I might attempt to say will have any meaning to you whatsoever. It'll seem completely foreign to you so you'll call it Satan and be done with it feeling satisfied you held to the truth and will be rewarded for your faith. You do best when playing on the same ground, arguing with another fundi who thinks they're right and you're wrong. At least its all the same currency. I'm actually really only posting for others not quite so inclined to memorizing a handbook from a "new truth" cult born in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They're a dime a dozen. Plus, what the heck?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I believe the words are mixed and mingled and some are incorrect.. prophet no.. his words are mixed with John's. So that even some words of Jesus who I believe is God and is crucified not being exact God's words but the words they written up.
Even old testament to the new.
Every scribed piece made was written later, but something in it's idea became later. No one ever liked the out come.
But what's interesting about the bible is it specifically goes around like if you were reading between the lines you see it.

 

[Deeje]

I am not presenting them as 'authors of scripture' at all, but clearly as Church Fathers and others who had major influences on Christian theology. Athanasius was the author of the Trinitarian doctrine, quite important.

Quite important to whom? Not to God, who had his son and apostles warn about a coming apostasy. The trinity emerged from that apostasy (among other equally God dishonoring doctrines...like hellfire, purgatory, adoration of Mary and immortality of the soul.)

But if you are going to take the stance you do, then the 'teachings of Jesus and the apostles' are also highly suspect, as, for one, we cannot even attribute them to Jesus and the apostles. There is corruption and manipulation of the texts in who knows how many cases, as well as obscurity as to who wrote the Gospels. Then there are the many versions of the Bible. Which one is authentic? The Codex Sinaiticus, which is the primary text the Bible is based upon, was rescued by Tischendorf as it was about to be tossed into a furnace from a trash bin, and which is rife with corrections, erasures, and other manipulations of the text.* Too, we have the current controversy over whether the NT was written in Greek or Aramaic. Then we have the rejection of the Apocryphal scriptures by the Council of Trent and others....and on and on.. But the primary manipulation comes from Paul, who took 3 elements and synthesized them to launch what is now modern Christianity: first, Jewish history as backdrop to lend authenticity to the myth; second, the Gnostic idea of the Logos, or teacher descending from heaven to man, and thirdly, the idea of a dying and resurrecting god-man, taken from the mystery religions in which Paul was steeped in Tarsus during his upbringing.

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you will understand that he is the one who directed its writing and preserved it down to this day. No man will be permitted to alter its message in any way. They will however, try to tamper with its interpretation. But yet again, God comes to the rescue by "drawing" right-hearted ones to his truth....the teachings of his son. (John 6:44) Those so "drawn" have no doubts. Those who want to believe the lies are wecome to them. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Jesus, or rather Yeshua, was a Nazarene, a member of a Jewish mystical cult, whose teachings did not include what Paul interjected.

As far as I am aware, Jesus was referred to as a Nazarene because he was from the city of Nazareth. He did not belong to some mystical cult at all. Are you confusing him with Nazirites?

I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to your view of Paul's teachings, which were perfectly in line with what Jesus taught. They are included in the Bible canon, and therefore inspired of God. If God cannot inspire and protect the contents of his own word, then he is not omnipotent.

If you want to believe in what Yeshua taught, you will have to learn how to extract his teachings from the corrupt NT, and the only way you can do that is to identify, via your own mystical experience, which passages are authentic and which are not.

This makes scripture secondary in importance to the living experience, as it is always a second-hand account anyway. If, as Yeshua said, 'the kingdom of God is within', then you should have no difficulty.

And this is exactly why I will never do that. "The Kingdom of God is within you" doesn't mean that there is some internal mystical experience at all....any mentally unbalanced person can produce evidence for a "mystical experience". The psych wards are full of people like that....they are delusional. Some think that they are God. Are they all receiving their enlightenment from God? I hardly think that can be used as evidence.

The meaning of the words in Greek translated "within you" can also be rendered "among you" or "in the midst of you". Jesus was right there in the midst of those wicked and corrupt religious leaders and they failed to recognize him.
To answer all questions Jesus said "it is written".....so if referencing God's word was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me.

Essentially, the teachings of Yeshua were Eastern in origin, not Western or pagan, which were overwritten onto them. The mystical experience is based upon the breath as the life-force, not the blood, as put forth in blood sacrifice. This is the crucial difference between the original teachings and modern Christianity.

I am well aware of the origins of Christendom's doctrines, which is why we don't subscribe to any of them.

The sin atoning blood of the Christ is all through the NT teachings, so I am at a loss to understand your position on this. (1 John 1:7; 2:1-2)

Atonement is "at-one-ment" meaning 'like for like'. The life Adam lost for his children was paid for by the equivalent life that Jesus offered on their behalf. Perfect sinless life was lost...a perfect sinless life was offered in exchange. If that was not the case, then Jesus could have just materialized a body and gone through the motions of being put to death...we wouldn't have known the difference. That didn't happen. His birth as a human was to be like any other natural birth. His upbringing showed him firsthand how difficult it was for sinful humans to keep a perfect law. This is why he offered himself so willingly....we were plunged into this situation through no fault on our part. He wanted to rescue us because he loves us as deeply as his Father does.

*Compare to the Aramaic Pe-shi-tta** Bible, with an accuracy of over 99.99...% from one copy to another.

We have and have referenced it often.

**It's one word, but had to hyphenate to avoid censorship by REF, LOL.

Yes, I have had the same problem myself.....sometimes it is very funny.

 

[godnotgod]

As far as I am aware, Jesus was referred to as a Nazarene because he was from the city of Nazareth. He did not belong to some mystical cult at all. Are you confusing him with Nazirites?

No.

First of all, we have zero evidence of a 1st Century Nazareth. It simply did not exist during Jesus's time, so he could not have been a citizen of 'Nazareth'. I don't want to get into a discussion about this here, as it is a topic of its own, and has been explored thoroughly on another thread. The NT scripture by Matthew is what is used by most Christians to claim that the reference to Jesus being a 'Nazarene' is about his citizenship of the town of Nazareth, which DID exist when it was written years later. That scripture (Matthew 2:23) is prophecy stating that Jesus 'shall be called a Nazarene'. But the reference is to:

"There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root."
(Jerome, Letter 47:7).
Sola Scriptura: The prophecy in Matthew 2:23, that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, came directly from scripture, not oral tradition.

Some still argue that 'Nazarene' is a reference to the town of Nazareth. However...

The high priest Ananias said about Paul during his trial:

5“We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him.
Acts 24 ►

...thereby confirming that the word 'Nazarene' refers to a sect, and not a city, which never existed in the 1st century. Furthermore, a Nazarene is an Essene:


At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

• The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.
  
  
• The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.
  
  
• The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

Josephus and other classic writers tell us of the Essenes and their intense appreciation for the inspired Law of God and that they "strove to be like the angels of heaven." They also opposed slavery, the sacrificing of animals and the eating of flesh. Their highest aim was to become fit temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 6:19), to be healers and perform cures, especially spiritual cures, and to be spiritually qualified as forerunners of the Messiah, the latter being the primary spiritual focus of the Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.

Nazarene or Nazareth?

And if the Nazarene Essenes opposed animal blood sacrifice, most certainly they opposed human sacrifice, and absolutely would have opposed the bloody and pagan Crucifixion of Yeshua as a device for the redemption of sin. Nay. The real reason for the Crucifixion was for treason and sedition against the Romans, and for blasphemy against God as charged by the Jewish high priests. The theme of blood sacrifice as sin redemption was overwritten onto the event of the Crucifixion.

 

[godnotgod]

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God....

No, can't say that I do. It's the corrupted word of unenlightened men.

And this is exactly why I will never do that. "The Kingdom of God is within you" doesn't mean that there is some internal mystical experience at all....any mentally unbalanced person can produce evidence for a "mystical experience". The psych wards are full of people like that....they are delusional. Some think that they are God. Are they all receiving their enlightenment from God? I hardly think that can be used as evidence.

The meaning of the words in Greek translated "within you" can also be rendered "among you" or "in the midst of you". Jesus was right there in the midst of those wicked and corrupt religious leaders and they failed to recognize him.
To answer all questions Jesus said "it is written".....so if referencing God's word was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me.

Maybe a different meaning in Greek, but Yeshu spoke Galilean Aramaic, and the Aramaic Bible, the Pesh-itta, translates the passage as 'The kingdom of God is within you'. It has been shown by Aramaic primacists that there are many errors that the Greek scribes made in their translations from the Aramaic, many times due to the fact that, while an Aramaic word can have 2 or 3 meanings, it has only 1 in Greek, and some of the Greek passages as rendered are dead or meaningless.

Certainly many people are delusional, but that does not mean the mystical experience is invalid. It only means some have not understood correctly. Mysticism simply means divine union; a merging of man and the divine nature, of course being the goal of all religious endeavor. It is clear that this experience, this union, must by necessity be an internal one. Yeshu expressed this union, for example, in: '

I and the Father are one'
John 10:30

 

[godnotgod]

The sin atoning blood of the Christ is all through the NT teachings, so I am at a loss to understand your position on this. (1 John 1:7; 2:1-2)

My position is that blood sacrifice is a superstitious belief and practice which has its origins in both Jewish animal sacrificial practice as precursor, and in pagan blood sacrifice superimposed over the original doctrines of Yeshua, thereby contaminating them. This is Pauline Christianity.

Because it is based on ignorance, it has no real efficacy in reality. It's effect depends wholly on the believer and his 'faith' that sacrificial divine blood somehow washes his sin away.

 

[rusra02]

The Bible nowhere says Jesus is true man and true God.

 

[bnabernard]

Why the, mystery, was God a mystery to Adam an Eve, at what point did God decide to hide in a bush.
Mystery by default is a creation , created by deception?

bernard

 

[godnotgod]

Why the, mystery, was God a mystery to Adam an Eve, at what point did God decide to hide in a bush.
Mystery by default is a creation , created by deception?

bernard

God is playing himself as Adam, Eve, and the serpent in a wonderfully delicious cosmic game of Hide and SEEk, in which God has completely immersed himself in his own creation. God warns Adam and Eve, *wink* *wink*, and then reappears to them as a serpent. The serpent is just God too, appearing to Adam and Eve to ensure that they partake of 'The Forbidden Fruit'. The 'Forbidden Fruit' is none other than the unconditional gift of Divine Union. And all's well that ends well, and a good time was had by all. No Sin.

So yes: not only is Yeshua true man and true God, but God is none other than The Universe itself.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda