There are things God can Not do -> God can Not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus Eternal?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Of course Jesus did not lie .. why would he?
..but what did He mean by a son of God?
He certainly didn't mean that he was "a god", because there is only One.
No .. a son of God in the OT .. and don't forget that the NT came along much later .. a son of God is one close to God .. like the promised Messiah, for example.
The Jews were not expecting God to come as a man.
..quite simply because a man cannot be God .. if a man could be God, then it would mean that a man created the universe .. but men are God's creation.
If God could "become a man", then Moses could be God .. any Tom, Dick or Harry could be God.
Rather, celebrated by 'so-called Christians'. Jesus' apostles never celebrated his birth.
Jesus only commanded to remember his date of death - Jewish calendar month of Nisan the 14th day.
Of course Jesus did not lie .. why would he?
..but what did He mean by a son of God?
He certainly didn't mean that he was "a god", because there is only One.
No .. a son of God in the OT .. and don't forget that the NT came along much later .. a son of God is one close to God .. like the promised Messiah, for example.
The Jews were not expecting God to come as a man.
..quite simply because a man cannot be God .. if a man could be God, then it would mean that a man created the universe .. but men are God's creation.
If God could "become a man", then Moses could be God .. any Tom, Dick or Harry could be God.
The first-century Jews (Luke 3:15) were expecting Messiah to come (the promised 'seed' (Messiah) of Genesis 3:15.
This is why God sent His pre-human heavenly Son to Earth for us. Jesus is God's promised 'seed'/ Messiah.
No he did not claim to be "a son of God". John's gospel is abundantly clear in its language calling him "the only begotten Son of God". That's a distinction from being simply a child of God, as all Christians are called sons and daughters of God. This distinction is not just one of many, but a special separate title, "The son of man", which is a prophetic reference to the coming Messiah. His audience clearly knew he meant someone distinct from the rest.
Yes, the passage is confirming what I just said how that he is setting himself apart,
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
The religious teachers in the story.
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him," John 10:31
"“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8:58-59
"“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8:58-59
This requires you know something about the Bible and its authors. If you don't understand this, then how is it you are using John's gospel to support your view, when you don't understand what the gospel is, it's author, it's audience, and its intent? These are important things to understand in reading these texts.
John's gospel is considered to be the "spiritual gospel". In it, he portrays Jesus as Divine, whereas the other three are considered the synoptic gospels, as they basically riff off of each other and tailor their stories about Jesus to their respective audiences. If you'd like to understand more about the backgrounds on these things from a modern scholarship perspective, I'd recommend starting here:
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
From the above link regarding the gospel of John:
Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled." (p. 918)
Of course he didn't. The gospels are stories about Jesus. Not dictiations!
They are religious polemics. They are not court stenographers. Whoever thinks that is seriously misguided in their thinking.But that opinion is considered by Christians to be of divine inspiration, and therefore reflects the basis for Christian belief. All the writings of the Bible were by human. Ideas that scriptures are direct dictations are pure fantasy, and a house of cards just waiting to fall. One technical error, and the whole belief system crumbles.
What scholars? I've never heard that. There are verses of the Bible that are later additions, such as the end of Mark in some translations. But never have I heard that about John 1:1-14. There no scholar I'm aware of who says this.
Someone must feel uncomfortable with what John is saying in clear language there. The whole prologue is John trying to bridge the gap between Jewish and Hellenistic thought by using language common to both. He is drawing from Philo of Alexandria's Logos as his basis to connect to his audiences. There is no reason to believe that came a later date and added to the text. It's far too profound to be a later addition. It's central to the entire gospel itself.
No words of the Bible were written by Jesus. Didn't you know that?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
- John 20 -
..so that shows that Jesus just materialised like he was "beamed down" by Captain Kirk?
Perhaps, he was already there .. lying low.
Often religious and theological concepts require concrete physical reality as a starting point. What better starting point for a Christian, than the body of Christ Himself. So I agree, the physical body is a necessary starting point. As you may be aware St Paul referred to 'the Body of Christ' as a metaphor for the Church.
The belief Jesus physically rose from the dead and continued His physical existence is of course a core belief for most Christians. So I can appreciate Christians would view eternity with the physical nature of Christ. However this belief is largely a Christian matter of faith.It is problematic for most who are not Christians and indeed many Christians themselves.
The Eternal nature of Christ for me is a theological concept that transcends Christian doctrine and I can see why such an approach would be viewed as problematic. However Jesus was all about upending the orthodox beliefs of His people and I'm sure He would not be entirely comfortable with the new orthodoxy that purports to replace it.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I'm well aware of the "christology" of Gospel of John.
The whole charade relies on that text being in the canon.
It is a sectarian text .. but the Romans favoured it, coming from a polytheist background, and having destroyed the Jewish temple where Jesus once worshiped.
I do not rely on the Gospel of John .. I was merely showing you what verse came after the one you quoted about Jesus being God and his stoning.
There were many texts floating around at the time the canon was finalised .. they favoured the Gospel of John. It "proved" Jesus' Divinity, and effectively made Roman law above Biblical law.
..yet there were many other "spiritual texts", but they were pronounced heresy, and ordered texts to be burnt.
Yes .. which is why its tenets must be upheld at all costs.
It starts like Genesis.
John is rewriting the OT, with philosophical prose that becomes Jesus .. Jesus replaces YHWH.
Tut tut..
What do you think?
Some words in the Gospels are written as "Jesus is reported to have said".
..and then we have philosophical prose, that is the opinions of an author.
Most scholars do not think that they were written by disciples .. it was apparently common for texts to be written "according to" by various anonymous authors during that time.
This is why we are seeing Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha'i with conflicting views about Jesus. Even among Christians there are conflicting views. So any views is subjective and correct ONLY in the individual believer's mind, no absolute truth. So I find it odd that there is a discussion at all, as no one have a true answer.
Everyone has their own texts, and their own texts supercede the texts of the others, so again, not truth, no authority, just a lot of beliefs with an absent God setting no one straight.
That is the belief, and there is no eevidence that suggests it is true and valid. I like the idea, but it strikes me as greedy and selfish for a human to believe.
It is what the author of the gospel of John was saying about Jesus though.
He doesn't ever have Jesus correcting them on that, does he?Jesus was the Logos become flesh, and all of those attributes describe the Logos of John 1:1. "and the Logos was God".
I wouldn't call it a mirror. I'd call it a conduit. The context is doing miraculous works from the Divine itself as the source and origin of the works. Jesus is a manifestation of God in the sense of a vessel. And those who are in Christ and Christ in them, likewise are conduits of the Divine manifested through them. "I live, yet not I, but Christ in me", Paul declares.
As I said, that's not what John meant. If it was, then why would the Jews have picked up stones to put him to death for blasphemy? That what they believed they were doing too, doing God's will. Wanting to kill him for that claim, makes no sense. It's what they claimed too!
Your own interpretation doesn't stand up to the context of the story. If you lob that part of it off, then maybe. But not with it intact. What was the author's intent, is the first question to ask. Clearly he intended it to mean something provocative enough for them to want to kill him! That's obvious.
Yes it clearly does. John 1:1 "and the Logos was God"..... John 1:14, "and the Logos became flesh". It explicitly does say that.
That is the role of the Logos, to reveal the invisible God. That's what John's prolog is all about. God manifests into the world, through the Logos. "All things were created through him". The Logos is how the invisible, transcendent, formless God, manifests into form. Through the Logos. The Logos is God manifesting. And the Logos, became flesh, and manifest God in the flesh of Jesus.
John is saying that the eternal Logos continued its eternal role of making the invisible God known, by becoming Jesus. That is John's gospel, from beginning to end.
Sure. The eternal Logos manifest the Divine through Jesus by becoming Jesus, continuing and fulfilling his role as God manifesting himself through the Logos. God became flesh, simply means we could see the fullness of the Godhead, in the person of Jesus. God was in him.
Please notice two (2) different times are mentioned that month - John 20:19 then 8-days later at John 20:26.19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
- John 20:19 -..so that shows that Jesus just materialised like he was "beamed down" by Captain Kirk?
Perhaps, he was already there .. lying low.
Since Jesus was still within the vicinity of the Earth (in other words, Not yet ascended to his Father, his God) he was Not beamed down but was still here - Acts of the Apostles 10:40-41- God allowed resurrected Jesus to be visible.
Besides, once resurrected Jesus would ascend the world would see resurrected Jesus No more - John 14:19
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
That's one meaning of it. Another one is "valid or existing at all times : TIMELESS". However, I will use your definition.
His body began at a certain time on earth, but his spirit has no beginning, according to my understanding. His spirit after his body died lasts forever after that. In contrast according to my understanding my soul came into being at the moment of conception in the womb.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
You think all souls also didn't have a beginning? I agree we all have no end.I believe that ALL souls/spirits belong to God.
..that they exist for eternity, as does God.
..so yes, in this context, Jesus is eternal .. but so are we all.
If you just want to just jettison that gospel, then of course that changes Christian views about Christ. Heck, if you through the whole Bible into the garbage, then you may as well just believe in Osiris. So much for Islam then. Let's just all go back to building pyramids for the Pharaohs.
Source? Is it the same source that claims the prologue of John is a later addition to the gospel, perchance? Can you provide any credible references?
You changed the wording of it, trying to make that passage say something other than the context supported. So, you were relying on the gospel of John at that moment as your source material for your argument.
Yes, there were other texts, but I'm not so sure your ascribing Roman influence is a supportable opinion here. Can you provide your sources?
Besides, the JWs use John, and they deny Jesus was God. They just have to mangle the texts to do it though.
I was referring to it as the spiritual gospel in the context of the canonical gospels. I considered the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita to be spiritual texts too, but they aren't considered canonical books in the Christian tradition.
I made that comment thinking of those who take the Quran as a flawless book direct from God. It's not different that Christian biblical innerentists. One tiny error, down goes your faith. It's not a good approach to thinking of scripture in any religious context, unless you either want to lose your faith if you're being honest, or you go into serve denialism that the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, and other such errors as are found in these ancient texts.
Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, it starts deliberately touching on Genesis 1:1, but is it to bridge the gap of understanding between Jewish and Hellenistic thought, exactly as I said. It is not at all a rewrite of the Genesis myth. It's a starting point to talk about Jesus.
You certainly seem to have an axe to grind with John. It's hard not to conclude that you simply don't like it's theology and want to bash it. I'm approaching it from a far less biased perspective than that. I'm relying more on scholarship more than religious biases.
All of these stories about what Jesus said and did are reflections of the author's view of him. They are "according to's", not historians. I wouldn't call them simply opinions, they are the Gospel, told by different people, according to them. I think you misunderstand the nature of what they are.What do you think?
Some words in the Gospels are written as "Jesus is reported to have said".
..and then we have philosophical prose, that is the opinions of an author.
I think you imagine they were supposed to be like news reporters on the scene with a camera crews creating a documentary film like story? That's a very modern, and completely incorrect view of them.
Of course, I know this. I understand what they are. Do you think they present themselves as a PBS documentary on the history of the civil war, or something?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, you are correct about the conflicting views.
You are correct to say that any view is subjective and correct in the individual believer's mind, but that does not mean that it is only correct in the mind of a believer. It is more accurate to say that a belief may or not be correct but there is no way to know which beliefs are correct.
I do not find it odd that there is a discussion at all, since the reason there is a discussion is because most believers 'believe' they have 'the answer.' I refuse to get engaged in such a dialogue, and I refuse to argue with believers over what certain scriptures mean, as it is an exercise in futility. I'd rather talk to an atheist than 'most believers' any day, since atheists have the ability to think rationally.
I believe that God set everyone straight when He sent Baha'u'llah, but of course that is only MY belief and there is no way to prove it is correct. Thus everyone has to make up their own mind about that.
No, there is no way to prove it is true that flesh and spirit are separate, material and immaterial, and our souls live on for eternity. Such is the nature of a religious belief, unprovable.
Why does it strike you as greedy and selfish for a human to believe?
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Jesus (as a human) has a beginning. But this Jesus is at the same time (the incarnation of) God and God is eternal. According to the fourth gospel (see John 1).
Since no one can argue that their belief is correct it is all arbitrary. The Bible was not written to be a reference for a certain belief. The four Gospels have one source and the other three are copies, with quite a few contradictions. And then what gets lost in translations? Any veiw can only be built on cherry picking as an approach.
It's a debate of coke versus pepsi, there is no correct answer.
If only his followers could show benefits that would impress.
It's another idea that doesn't correlate to anything, but it is assigned meaning as if it does. It is crucial to Christian doctrine, but just adds to less coherence.
Good idea for a thread. I think a mature human mind should accept our mortality, and deal with any fear of death head on. This idea of an afterlife seems exploitive of Christianity, at least once the Catholics became THE form of Christianity, but then on into the protestant versions. It exploits people's fear of death, and of course who wouldn't want to be reunited with dead loved ones. I sure would. I just don't see that as plausible. I can't live my life thinking that will happen. It seems greedy to want more than this mortal life offers. It is selfish because the only reason a person would accept this idea is because they get a "get out of death free" card. It is selfish as an idea when we add in the heaven and hell scenario, because many believers think they are going to heaven and others deserve hell. That serves the self, at least their ego. What comes with this is loads of debates about what gets a person in heaven with Jesus forever, and what gets others cast in hell forever. None of that is very clear.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
John 1 does not say that Jesus was an incarnation of God, that is just what some people believe it means, but it cannot mean that since all the other Bible verses show that Jesus was not God incarnate, and Jesus never claimed to be God.
Jesus is not God Bible verses
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
That is a lot of verses that say He is not God. Impressive.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, Jesus is not God, not unless you deny most of the Bible and instead believe Christian doctrine.
Not only the verses prove that, but certain attributes are unique to God. Only God is Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, so nobody except God can have those attributes. That means that on a purely logical basis Jesus cannot be God.
Last edited: